Mississippi’s recent legislation has sparked significant controversy, particularly around its potential impact on citizens’ rights to protest. Senate Bill 2343, which was passed during the 2023 legislative session and became law in July, introduces strict requirements for public demonstrations near state-owned buildings. According to attorney and podcast host Steve Lehto and journalist Mina Corpuz, this law may significantly curtail the ability of citizens to engage in spontaneous protests, raising serious concerns about First Amendment rights.
The Requirements Under Senate Bill 2343
The law mandates that any public demonstration on streets or sidewalks adjacent to the Capitol or other state-owned buildings requires prior written approval from the Public Safety Commissioner or the Chief of the Capitol Police. This approval must be sought at least 30 days before the event. As Lehto highlights in his analysis, this requirement effectively forces protesters to plan their demonstrations a month in advance, which could undermine the immediacy and impact of protests that respond to current events.
Balancing Free Speech and Public Safety
During an August 8th meeting, Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell acknowledged the need to consider the First Amendment while drafting regulations under this new law. However, as Mina Corpuz reports, the balance between public safety and free speech remains a contentious issue. Critics argue that the law could have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly because the regulations could lead to arrests and convictions in the newly established Capitol Complex Improvement District court.
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Concerns
The law has already faced legal challenges. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate granted a preliminary injunction against the bill, temporarily preventing its enforcement while the courts review its constitutionality. Frank Rosenblatt, a constitutional law professor at Mississippi College School of Law, expressed doubts that the court would accept public safety as a blanket justification for restricting speech. He emphasized that in traditional public forums like sidewalks and streets, speech regulations must meet specific criteria, including being content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
Vagueness and Potential for Misuse
One of the most concerning aspects of the law, as pointed out by Steve Lehto, is its vague language. The law requires a permit for any “event” but does not clearly define what constitutes an event. This ambiguity could lead to selective enforcement, where authorities might decide on a case-by-case basis whether a gathering qualifies as an event requiring a permit. Lehto warns that this vagueness could be exploited to suppress dissent, particularly against protests that are critical of government actions.
Impact on Spontaneous Protests
The requirement to obtain a permit 30 days in advance poses a significant barrier to spontaneous protests. As both Lehto and Corpuz note, protests often arise in response to sudden events or decisions that provoke public outrage. The 30-day waiting period could render many protests irrelevant by the time they are permitted, effectively silencing immediate public reaction to pressing issues. This delay undermines the purpose of protests as a means of expressing timely and collective discontent.
Draft Regulations and Public Feedback
The Department of Public Safety is currently in the process of drafting regulations to implement Senate Bill 2343. During the public comment period, Rosenblatt and his law students raised concerns about how the regulations would respect First Amendment rights. They questioned how the agency would define public safety and whether the regulations would be applied fairly. Despite these concerns, Rosenblatt expressed skepticism that the feedback would lead to significant changes in the proposed regulations.
The Broader Implications for Free Speech
This new law in Mississippi is part of a broader trend where governments, citing public safety, impose increasingly stringent restrictions on public demonstrations. While public safety is undoubtedly important, the challenge lies in ensuring that such regulations do not infringe upon constitutional rights. As Lehto argues, many of the potential threats to public safety that the law aims to address, such as blocking building entrances, are already illegal. Therefore, the new law may be more about controlling the content and timing of protests than genuinely protecting public safety.
The Role of Judicial Review
With the law currently under judicial review, its future remains uncertain. If the courts find that the law does not adequately protect free speech, it could be struck down or significantly altered. However, if it is upheld, it may set a precedent for other states to enact similar laws, potentially leading to a national shift in how public protests are regulated. This outcome could have far-reaching implications for the exercise of free speech and the right to assemble in the United States.
“If You Need Permission, It’s Not a Right”
People in the comments shared their thoughts: “Politicians haven’t been tarred and feathered in a long time, and it shows. If you need to get permission, it’s not a RIGHT!”
One commenter added: “The whole idea of a permit suggests that they have the authority to deny such event. Why would anybody agree to let the government have MORE power over them??”
Another person said: “Yes. Because having to file to conduct a protest is totally not going to backfire and defeat the purpose of protesting against the government.”
A Threat to Democratic Expression
In conclusion, Mississippi’s Senate Bill 2343 represents a significant challenge to the right to protest, a cornerstone of democratic expression. While the law’s supporters argue that it is necessary for public safety, critics like Steve Lehto and Mina Corpuz contend that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on free speech. As the law faces scrutiny in the courts, its potential impact on civil liberties remains a critical issue that demands close attention and robust public debate.
Stifling Spontaneous Public Expression
What are your thoughts? How can governments balance the need for public safety with the constitutional right to free speech and assembly? Where should the line be drawn? Does the requirement of a 30-day notice for protests effectively stifle spontaneous public expression, or is it a necessary measure for maintaining order? In what ways might vague legal language, like the term “event,” be used to suppress dissent, and how can laws be crafted to avoid such potential misuse?
Explore the full insights by viewing the video on Steve Lehto’s YouTube channel here, read the article on Mississippi Today here, and check out the law here.
