FOI Oklahoma encourages our legislators to focus on and protect our First Amendment rights rather than creating and passing legislation that opposes them.

That’s why we are expressing our utmost concern and opposition to recent Oklahoma legislative bills that seem contrary to the First Amendment’s “right of the people peaceably to assemble” and “freedom of speech.”

In our opinion, they raise many questions and give rise to unintended results.

Those bills include Senate Bill 403, which was approved in the House of Representatives and has been sent to Gov. Kevin Stitt. The bill expands on existing language to make it unlawful for anyone to “disturb, interfere or disrupt” the business of any political subdivision, body, board or commission.

Another, House Bill 1674, makes obstructing a public roadway included in an action that constitutes a “riot.” That same bill would grant civil and criminal immunity to drivers who unintentionally injure or kill protesters while drivers are “fleeing from a riot.”

Thus, any non-permitted march could be deemed a riot. Would our state Legislature consider the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965 a “riot”? What about the Black Lives Matter march to the state Capitol last year? The Oklahoma teacher walkout in 2018? The pro NRA and Second Amendment rallies?

We also think this legislation creates avenues that prosecutors may use to avoid filing charges against potential wrongdoers with whom they have political or philosophical sympathies.

Regarding SB 403, would the Legislature also eventually deem citizen comments at public meetings as disruptive? Is this intended to quell public comments at several recent meetings of the Oklahoma County Jail Trust? And who decides whether citizens are disruptive, disturbing or even obscene? The First Amendment’s right to free speech sometimes creates disruption, is sometimes obscene, but that doesn’t mean we need this type of legislation to control it either.

These elected legislators seem intent on creating umbrella legislation that could even oppose constituents they represent, ones who support the above proposals, if these constituents are the ones being disruptive, disturbing or obscene. And are lawmakers against those who march in opposition of anything, so much that lawmakers would allow drivers to run over them?

Not only are both pieces of legislation anti-First Amendment, they are just more examples of unnecessary political grandstanding.