Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Free Speech Protests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines to report bill regulating residential protests after public hearing citing First Amendment concerns
Summary
After a public hearing and extended discussion, the County and Municipal Government Committee declined to give SB247 a favorable report. Opponents, including civil-rights advocates and some senators, said the bill would chill protected speech and leave vague standards for enforcement; sponsors said it would protect residential privacy and safety.
The committee held a public hearing on SB247, a bill that would allow municipalities or counties to adopt regulations limiting the time and noise level of picketing or protesting in residential areas, and which sets time limits and amplification rules for protests near private residences.
Camille Bennett of Project Say Something testified in opposition, arguing the bill would be “an assault on the First Amendment rights and voices of marginalized Alabamians” and that provisions in the bill — including a prohibition on certain amplified noise near residences and language restricting protests 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset — were vague and would give broad discretion to law enforcement.
Supporters, including the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to protect residents’ peace and safety, to give law enforcement a clear path to resolve escalation without immediate arrest and to allow local governments to adopt stricter rules. The sponsor also said the bill is meant to provide tools in situations where demonstrations are targeted at private residences and create safety concerns.
Several senators said they were sympathetic to protecting private residences but expressed concern about vague language, enforcement discretion and the potential to chill lawful protest in downtown and mixed-use neighborhoods. One senator noted that some counties lack authority to adopt certain regulations and that the bill’s permissive language leaves much to local governments.
Committee action After discussion and a roll call, the committee did not receive a favorable report on SB247.
Why it matters The bill touches on the balance between residential privacy and the constitutional right to protest. If enacted, it would give local governments explicit authority to regulate protests near residences and could affect how demonstrations are conducted in mixed-use urban centers and small towns.
Provenance: first and last transcript references "There is a public hearing. I almost kind of gave up the faith. It's a simple bill.... I filed the first version in response to the Justice Kavanaugh hearings where people went to his house and were demonstrating outside at all hours of the night." (bill sponsor) [transcript excerpt] "Don't receive a favor report. Thank you, Senator Orr." [transcript excerpt]
Ending Senators asked the sponsor to consider local solutions and possible amendments; the bill failed to win a favorable committee report and will not move forward from committee in its current form.
