Anti-Targeted Picketing Bill Fails in Idaho House, Doxing Bill TabledBy Greg Pruett • March 9, 2021
House Bill 195, after being sent to “General Orders” was back on the House Floor yesterday.
Rep. Brooke Green (D-Boise) and Rep. Greg Chaney (R-Caldwell) were the bill sponsors. Both said the bill was the result of protests outside of elected officials’ homes over the last year.
Proponents say the bill is necessary to prevent intimidation of individuals in their homes. Opponents have argued that the bill is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
After a lengthy debate on the House Floor, HB 195 failed on a vote of 31-38.
Here is a screenshot of who voted in which direction. The “green” names represent a “yes” vote and the “red” names represent a “no” vote. (Names in white were absent at the time of the vote.)
Chaney in his opening remarks said that despite the protests that have taken place at his home in recent days, the legislation was in the works well before that happened. He said the bill wasn’t about him.
Chaney said the bill was an effort to stop people on the “far-left” and the “far-right” from engaging in activities that were meant to harass and scare people inside their homes.
A number of lawmakers stood up and both sides of the issue to debate the bill.
Rep. Gary Marshall (R-Idaho Falls) said that the bill was constitutional and that he supported the 1st Amendment but even the 1st Amendment has limitations.
Rep. Julianne Young (R-Blackfoot) argued that there were existing statutes that already covered what Chaney and Green’s bill were trying to prevent.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Joe Palmer (R-Meridian) told a personal story from his childhood when his dad, a police officer, had a gang outside of his home, threatening to kill his family. Palmer said his dad went out and talked with the gang members and eventually the police showed up and arrested some of the individuals and made the others disburse.
Palmer said that while he didn’t support protesting at people’s homes, he also didn’t support the bill.
In the end, not enough House members voted to move the bill forward.
In addition to HB 195, another bill dealing with “doxing” (HB 288) was tabled by the House.
Do you believe it should be illegal to protest outside someone’s home? Let us know in the comments below.
Tags: Brooke Green, Doxing, Gary Marshall, Greg Chaney, HB 195, HB 288, Joe Palmer, Julianne Young, Targeted Picketing
13 thoughts on “Anti-Targeted Picketing Bill Fails in Idaho House, Doxing Bill Tabled”
It’s good to see that our Constitutional Right’s were upheld once again: The Right to “Peacefully” Assemble.
All Citizens are Equal, we Do Not ever want an elite class of rulers.
Thank you to those of you who voted HB195 down.
Well said, I concur.
Absolutely not under no circumstances should thus be legal or acceptable. Being a thug is not freedom of speech and infringes on the rights of the individual, their families, their privacy, and the rights of their neighbors. If you have a poem with someone or their policies file a complaint, write a letter to the editor, vote them out, or get an initiative onto the ballot.
Absolutely not under no circumstances should mandating, shutdowns, and dictating from their homes be legal or acceptable; Lord little and his cronies are learning that our freedom and human rights are not so easily stripped away without consequence; those who try to dictate our lives should fear for theirs. They do not rule the people, they work for us.
Our Declaration of Independence & Constitution are clear. Together they protect our rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. HB195 & H288 deny those rights which makes them unconstitutional. It’s extremely concerning & Shameful that 31 Elected Officials chose to violate their Oath to office as well as the People they represent.
When they muzzle us with masks; when they severely restrict the public from attending their meetings (and those allowed in may or may not be allowed to say anything and then for only 2 minutes); when they conduct the public’s business via Zoom from their homes (with or without the public able to virtually attend); when they don’t answer emails or phones unless it’s to give you an automatic message saying they won’t be responding to your email/phone call–im looking at you Central District Health)—-just what do these elected officials leave us with?? Petitioning elected officials peacefully and respectfully outside their homes is what is left.
You elected officials backed us into this corner. We don’t want to come to your neighborhoods, but what other redress would we have had if 195 had passed?? Thank you to the house members who recognized the unconstitutionality of this bill.
Recently, too many “officials” are hiding in their homes and doing business via Zoom or other internet forms of meeting. If we can’t take our concerns to them at their homes or businesses then We The People are at a disadvantage. As long as trespassing onto private property and impeding traffic are not happening then protests and rallies in front of these “official’s” homes and places of business are and should be continued to be allowed. Elected officials and hired or appointed bureaucrats need to have some fear of their constituents.
Their homes became public buildings when they conducted their illegal shutdowns and mandates from their homes; Rather than the public building they were supposed to be at. These evil people want to be able to shut us down, destroy our livelihoods, accept their china money, without disturbance from their fellow citizens. Not sorry, they should fear for their lives when they attempt to take away our freedom.
There are already laws against disturbing the peace, trespassing etc. that is in place now. Elected officials don’t need special laws.
Personally I am not comfortable demonstrating in front of a private residence for my own reasons, but I do believe citizens have a Constitutional right to do so.