As reported by the Daily Wire, “On Thursday, the Kentucky Senate voted to pass a bill that would create stricter laws against forms of protesting and rioting, including the criminalization of taunting police officers following last year’s protests in Louisville.”
According to the Associated Press, anyone who “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response” would be guilty of a misdemeanor under the new bill, and could be fined or sentenced to serve up to 90 days in prison.
“State Sen. Danny Carroll is a Republican who sponsored the bill,” the Daily Wire report by Charlotte Pence Bond continues. “He said that the reason he submitted the measure was in response to the protesting in Louisville last year.”
“The Republicans in Kentucky control the Senate and the new bill passed with a 22-11 vote,” the report noted.
While the goal to increase punishment for rioters — with those charged for rioting “required to be held for a minimum of 48 hours” and the prohibition of pointing “a light, a laser pointer, an activated horn or other noise-making device towards the head” of a first responder — there is a concerning element of this bill which stands as a clear infringement of First Amendment rights.
Looking again specifically at the language which focuses on anyone who “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response,” we simply must acknowledge that such a multitude of vague terms would be rife for abuse and misuse.
Like all unclear wording, there are ways it can be used which would be more than agreeable. For example, we can presume that threatening a police officer with a drawn fist would be a legitimate threat of violence which could provoke a response. Among the sensible, this would seem a reasonable act to outlaw.
However, what about the other terms included? “Insults?” “Taunts?” “Gestures?” These exist entirely in the realm of the subjective, with words being judged as threatening and violent by one person and emotional but harmless by another.
The power, in both a positive and negative sense, in legislation lies in the specificity or lack thereof of its wording. In this case, such vague language hands interpretative power to both law enforcement and the state government, relying on interpretation alone.
Not only that, it is concerning that this bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Senate. While “some Republican senators who were not in favor of the bill stated that they had concerns over how it might impede First Amendment rights or overwork the court system,” it remains clear that such concerns were not strong enough to reduce support. Indeed, “they reportedly indicated that they could support the measure if some of the sections were changed when it goes to the House.”
For conservatives, we simply cannot have a “pass now, change later” mentality when it comes to fundamental rights. The wording is unnecessarily and — potentially — dangerously vague, and those who would suffer from such mistakes will inevitably be among Kentucky’s constituents.
The duty of conservatives must be to protect our fundamental rights. To open the door to the possible abuse of such rights is to fail in this duty.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
