Protest sponsors can be held liable for damages if they incited, directed, or directly participated in the acts that caused the damage. However, under the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, organizers are generally protected from liability for the unlawful acts of others unless they were directly involved in those acts. Recent legislative proposals in various states, such as Ohio and Illinois, aim to create new civil liability for organizers and funders even without direct involvement in the damaging acts, though the scope of these laws varies.
Current Legal Landscape
Direct Involvement is Key: Under current interpretations of the First Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent, organizers are typically not held liable for damage or injury caused by other protesters unless they incited, directed, or participated in the specific illegal acts that led to the damages.
DeRay
Mckesson Case Example:
A prominent example is the DeRay Mckesson case, where an officer sued Mckesson for injuries sustained by an object thrown by another protester. While Mckesson did not throw the object, the case involved allegations of negligence for failing to prevent potential violence at the protest. The Supreme Court denied hearing the case, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand, which found Mckesson could potentially be liable under a negligence theory.
Organizers Not Liable for "Someone Else's" Actions: Freedom Forum highlights that if you organize a protest, you cannot be held liable for damage or injury caused by someone else if it cannot be proven that you incited, directed, or participated in the illegal acts.
Emerging Legislation & Proposals
Increased Sponsor Liability: Some legislative proposals, like the ones tracked by the ICNL, seek to expand liability for protest organizers and funders.
New Civil Causes of Action: Bills introduced in states like Ohio would allow civil lawsuits against organizers and sponsors for property damage or injuries, even without direct involvement in the act causing the damage, according to the ICNL.
Riot Boosting Legislation: Some laws, such as those in the past session in South Dakota, have provided for civil liability for "riot boosting" if a person or organization provides material support or encourages illegal acts, even if they did not personally commit them, notes ICNL.
Liability for damages by protest sponsors or organizers is very limited under the First Amendment and current law, but the issue is complex and evolving. The central question is whether a sponsor can be held liable for unlawful acts by others at a protest they did not specifically direct or incite.
The
US Supreme Court standard
The
landmark 1982 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. established
a high bar for holding protest sponsors and organizers liable.
· Incitement standard: To
be held liable, a sponsor must be proven to have incited, directed, or
participated in specific illegal acts.
· First Amendment
protection: The ruling affirmed that the First Amendment shields protest
organizers from being held responsible for the unlawful acts of other
demonstrators, as long as the organizer did not direct or incite imminent
violence.
· No liability for negligence: This precedent rejects the idea that a sponsor or organizer could be held liable for damages based on a "negligent protest" theory—that is, simply failing to predict or prevent the potential for violence. This principle was reaffirmed in the 2024 dismissal of a long-running lawsuit against activist DeRay Mckesson.
Exceptions
and ongoing legal challenges
There are specific circumstances where organizers or sponsors may face liability, and ongoing legislative efforts seek to expand it.
Federal
courts and lawsuits
· Direct action: A
sponsor can be held liable if they authorized, directed, or approved of
specific activities that led to violence or damage.
· Defamation: A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims connected to pipeline protests, awarding millions in damages to a pipeline company. This verdict relates to specific damages and charges rather than general sponsor liability.
State-level
"anti-protest" laws
Following high-profile protests, many states have introduced or passed laws
that increase civil and criminal penalties for protest-related activities,
including expanding liability for sponsors.
· Broadening liability:
Some proposals aim to create a civil cause of action against sponsors or
organizers for property damage, regardless of whether they were directly
involved or intended for violence to occur.
· Targeting
"critical infrastructure": Other bills specifically target protests
near facilities like pipelines and utilities, creating felony offenses for
damaging property and expanding liability to those who "aid, advise, or
conspire with" protesters.
· First Amendment issues: Legal experts have raised concerns that some of these laws are overbroad and violate the First Amendment, potentially punishing nonviolent, protected speech. Some provisions in such laws have been found unconstitutional by federal courts.
Summary
of liability factors
The
following factors generally determine if a protest sponsor could be liable for
damages:
· Incitement of illegal
acts: Did the sponsor intentionally urge or direct people to engage in violence
or illegal activities?
· Direct involvement: Did
the sponsor personally participate in, authorize, or approve specific illegal
acts?
· Vicarious liability:
Some legal arguments have tried to use this concept—holding a party responsible
for the actions of another, like an employee or agent—though it is highly
restricted by First Amendment protections for protest organizers.
· State-specific legislation: Some states have enacted new laws that lower the bar for holding sponsors or organizers liable, although the constitutionality of these laws is often challenged.
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+protest+sponsors+liable+for+damages
Comments
Advanced Communication Technologies including the Internet and TV News have replaced ”Protests”. Free Political Speech can now be achieved with TV and Internet access. US “Rights to Privacy” are being abused by allowing “Protests” to clog our streets, highways and parks. Rallies offer a good alternative to political gatherings.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment