So if you go to the proposed bill to secure the county building and look at the screenshot outlining what is loitering and what is trespassing, you’ll notice it leaves very little room for protest. The front of the building is considered loitering. The insides are also trespassing if the sheriffs office doesn’t want you there. I’d consider it a public building and thus should be more accommodating for protests and demonstrations. Not only that, but is the security of the county building really the concern of the state government? Perhaps. But I think not.
TL;DR the proposed bill to secure the county building is kind of bad/strange
isn’t the county able to make it trespassing instead of the state? (correct me if i’m wrong)
also why is the sidewalk considered loitering, I thought loitering would make more sense inside of the building since it isn’t the capitol… or a CLASSIFIED area
and why is it trespassing to enter the area if there’s a public viewing area???
Its not a public building from what I’ve been told, Protests can still occur, so long as you’re on the sidewalk, you have other places to protest other than the front of the building.
The building is private property, you’re allowed to be in the blue areas unless you’re asked to leave, and you won’t be asked to leave unless you’re causing trouble.
There’s no need for that, why make the sidewalks loitering and make the entire interior of the building trespassing
there shouldn’t even be a loitering bill on the building imo, if the person is being disorderly just remove them from the building lol and why is the ENTIRE building trespassing when there’s clearly a spectating area for civilians to watch sessions…
only part of the building that should be trespassing is the offices/area where sessions occur.
also why is the state doing something the county can do themselves, I don’t even think y’all consulted with the county as the only co sponsor was another senator
cone off the area and restrict individuals from entering the area, I don’t understand why the sidewalk has to be loitering as well lol
Basically so if someone is a threat or is acting disorderly and we need to kick them out, we don’t want them to stand right next to the building. Yesterday during the county session we had people standing against the outer walls who glitched into the building.
An unreasonable request. Parking lots are essentially roadways. The idea that the sheriff’s office, which is an arm of the county government, would be able to shut down any reasonable protest in front of the county’s government offices is absurd.
It shouldn’t even be loitering to stand in front of the building. SCSO, a branch of the county government, should not be allowed to clear a peaceful assembly in front of the county building on the grounds that the demonstrators are loitering. There needs to be a better standard here, or none at all!
We’re not using it to clear a peaceful assembly, once again, if during a county session there is someone we need to “kick out” for being disruptive or for any other reason, then we’ll kick them out. We won’t kick them out just for peacefully assembling. Also realize that it’s only loitering if told to leave and refusing to leave.
That’s hardly a guarantee. The law should be amended. Inside the building I can understand someone disrupting the function of government. However, the space in front of and around the building should not be loitering.
