Alabama Senate Bill SB199

Alabama 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/11/23
• Refer: 4/11/23
• Report Pass: 4/13/23
• Engrossed: 5/2/23
• Refer: 5/2/23
• Report Pass: 5/10/23

Caption

Relating to crimes and offenses; to prohibit an individual from picketing or protesting in certain circumstances; to allow counties and municipalities to adopt ordinances or regulations regarding time and noise regulations in certain circumstances; to provide criminal penalties for violations; and in connection therewith would have as its purpose of effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of Section 111.05 of the Constitution of Alabama of 2022.

Impact

The bill allows local governments to create their own ordinances regulating the timing and noise levels of protests in residential neighborhoods. This local control aims to balance the right to free expression with the need to maintain peace in residential areas. The enforcement of these new regulations, however, will depend on the municipalities or counties adopting and implementing such rules, potentially leading to variations in how protests are managed across different regions within the state.

Summary

SB199 prohibits individuals from picketing or protesting near the residences of others if the intent is to harass, intimidate, or disturb those individuals. It defines 'residence' clearly and establishes legal parameters surrounding lawful protest activities. Under this bill, infringers would face criminal penalties, classified as misdemeanors depending on the nature of the violation. A first offense would be classified as a Class C misdemeanor, while subsequent violations elevate to a Class B misdemeanor.

Contention

Debate surrounding SB199 may focus on concerns regarding the implications for civil rights and the ability to protest freely. Critics may argue the bill imposes undue restrictions on free speech and the right to assemble, particularly in residential settings, where public dissent against various issues may manifest. Supporters, however, contend that the bill is essential for maintaining peaceful living environments and preventing harassment through aggressive forms of protest. This divergence in perspectives highlights an ongoing tension between public order and civil liberties.