{"id":267,"date":"2024-01-08T16:28:44","date_gmt":"2024-01-08T16:28:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=267"},"modified":"2024-01-08T16:28:44","modified_gmt":"2024-01-08T16:28:44","slug":"hb-40-and-the-criminalization-of-dissent-in-north-carolina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2024\/01\/hb-40-and-the-criminalization-of-dissent-in-north-carolina\/","title":{"rendered":"HB 40 and the Criminalization of Dissent in North Carolina"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

North Carolina House Bill 40, commonly known as the \u201cAnti-Riot Act\u201d goes into effect on December 1st<\/sup>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is HB 40? <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduced by House Speaker Tim Moore, HB 40<\/a> passed through the North Carolina General Assembly last Spring and was signed into law in March. Moore introduced<\/a> an identical bill in 2021 directly after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, which Governor Cooper vetoed. The likelihood of getting HB 40 passed increased<\/a> after Republicans gained more seats in the General Assembly in the 2022 midterm elections.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 40<\/a> increases penalties for protesting. In the original version<\/a> of the bill, it defines a riot vaguely as \u201cdisorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, [that] results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.\u201d It also increases penalties for those who \u201cincite\u201d riots or \u201curge\u201d people to engage in riots from misdemeanors to felonies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) filed a lawsuit<\/a> in April arguing that this law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the grounds that it discouraged protest by significantly increasing criminal penalties for protesting.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their suit<\/a>, the ACLU challenged specific provisions of the law that criminalized “urging<\/a>” a person to engage in a riot even if the person urging is not involved in the protest and the overly broad definition of a \u201cdisorderly\u201d which could include nonviolent protest. In June, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 626,<\/a> which amended HB 40 by taking out language<\/a> criminalizing \u201curging\u201d another person to engage in a riot, but kept the vague definition of a riot being \u201cdisorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broader Implications<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The silencing and criminalization of protest is not new in this country. It is important to understand HB 40 in context. Since the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, lawmakers in more than 34 states have introduced similar anti-protest bills<\/a>. In 2021, the number of anti-protest bills more than doubled<\/a> any other year. Instead of responding to the messages of the protests, lawmakers have responded by prohibiting the protests altogether.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the changes made to HB 40 through SB 626 are significant, they are not enough. With its vague and broad definition of a \u201cdisorderly\u201d protest, North Carolina joins many other states in codifying laws that criminalize dissent.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marlo Kalb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Staff Member<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

North Carolina House Bill 40, commonly known as the \u201cAnti-Riot Act\u201d goes into effect on December 1st.   What is HB 40?   Introduced by House Speaker Tim Moore, HB 40 passed through the North Carolina General Assembly last Spring and was signed into law in March. Moore introduced an identical bill in 2021 directly after the …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":268,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions\/268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}