What Tennessee's PEACE Act means for free speech
Tennessee's new Protecting Everyone Against Crime and Extremism Act (PEACE Act) law limits approaching police officers and is a threat to First Amendment freedoms. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)
A new Tennessee law with the unassuming acronym 'PEACE' might appear, on the surface, to be a mundane update to the state's criminal code. But tucked into the legislation's language is a clear and deliberate threat to the First Amendment freedoms of Tennesseans.
On Friday, Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 30, the Protecting Everyone Against Crime and Extremism Act (PEACE Act).The law makes it a criminal offense to leave 'unsolicited flyers' on public or private property, hang signs from overpasses and bridges, ride in the back of a box truck, refuse to give one's name or give a false name to law enforcement, and approach within 25 feet of an officer after being ordered to stop or retreat.
While these provisions might sound like routine penalties for littering, limits on approaching police officers and tweaks to law enforcement powers, they raise serious First Amendment concerns.
One of the most troubling aspects of the law is its expansion of the state's intimidation law to criminalize acts like handing out flyers or trespassing if done with the 'intent to intimidate' someone from exercising their rights. This language is dangerously vague, and that's exactly the problem. 'Intent to intimidate' is not clearly defined and can easily be used to target protestors, demonstrators, or anyone expressing dissent in a way that makes someone uncomfortable.
Bill expanding Tennessee law enforcement powers during protests draws pushback
Additionally, the law classifies dropping 'unsolicited flyers' on private or public property as 'littering,' which means a political pamphlet left on a doorstep could potentially lead to a criminal charge. The Supreme Court has long held that leafleting is protected speech, not trash. In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), Schneider v. State (1939), Talley v California (1960) and Watchtower v. Village of Stratton (2002), the Court affirmed that the right to distribute printed material, especially for political or religious purposes, lies at the heart of the First Amendment.
The Tennessee law's new provisions also prohibit approaching within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop. Although the amended version narrows this to active crime scenes, traffic stops, or public safety threats, it still violates the public's right to record and monitor police conduct in public spaces. Federal courts have increasingly recognized this right as an essential check on government power. In Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), the First Circuit wrote that '[t]he filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place… fits comfortably' within the principles of protected First Amendment expression.
As if these aspects of the law were not concerning enough, it also grants police broader authority to arrest individuals for misdemeanors not committed in their presence and provides legal immunity to officers who decide later not to issue citations for these alleged offenses. In combination with the new criminal categories for expressive conduct, this gives law enforcement a wide berth to intimidate and arrest peaceful demonstrators, especially in politically charged settings.
Legal advocates have tracked similar efforts around the country where these minor offenses are not used against litterers and loiters but as a means to shut down protests. This would give the government wider latitude to target speech that the party in power doesn't like, from climate activists to pro-life protestors to labor union strikes.
Supporters of this law may argue that these provisions promote public order or protect communities from hate. But the First Amendment does not allow the government to punish speech simply because it is offensive or hateful. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even the most disturbing or bigoted speech is protected unless it is intended and likely to provoke imminent lawless action, amounts to a true threat, or defamation.
Laws that target speech based on the speaker's motive or viewpoint and give broad discretion to law enforcement violate fundamental constitutional principles. The PEACE Act presents significant risks of overreach and is likely to face constitutional challenges in court.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
House approves Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk. The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. 'This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,' said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. 'That's $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won't see wasted. It's their money.' The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump's big tax and immigration bill. He also said it's possible the Senate could tweak the bill. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school. 'Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,' McClain said. 'It's about people in our country being put first.' The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,' added Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump tax bill would help the richest, hurt the poorest, CBO says
Advertisement Households in the middle of the income distribution would see an increase in resources of $500 to $1,000, or between 0.5 percent and 0.8 percent of their income. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The projections are based on the version of the tax legislation that House Republicans passed last month, which includes much of Trump's economic agenda. The bill would extend tax cuts passed under Trump in 2017 otherwise due to expire at the end of the year and create several new tax breaks. It also imposes new changes to the Medicaid and SNAP programs in an effort to cut spending. Overall, the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to US deficits over the next 10 years, not accounting for dynamic effects, the CBO previously forecast. The Senate is considering changes to the legislation including efforts by some Republican senators to scale back cuts to Medicaid. Advertisement The projected loss of safety-net resources for low-income families come against the backdrop of higher tariffs, which economists have warned would also disproportionately impact lower-income families. While recent inflation data has shown limited impact from the import duties so far, low-income families tend to spend a larger portion of there income on necessities, such as food, so price increases hit them harder. The House-passed bill requires that able-bodied individuals without dependents document at least 80 hours of 'community engagement' a month, including working a job or participating in an educational program to qualify for Medicaid. It also includes increased costs for health care for enrollees, among other provisions. More older adults also would have to prove they are working to continue to receive SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps. The legislation helps pay for tax cuts by raising the age for which able bodied adults must work to receive benefits to 64, up from 54. Under the current law, some parents with dependent children under age 18 are exempt from work requirements, but the bill lowers the age for the exemption for dependent children to 7 years old. The legislation also shifts a portion of the cost for federal food aid onto state governments. CBO previously estimated that the expanded work requirements on SNAP would reduce participation in the program by roughly 3.2 million people, and more could lose or face a reduction in benefits due to other changes to the program. A separate analysis from the organization found that 7.8 million people would lose health insurance because of the changes to Medicaid. With assistance from Alex Newman. Advertisement
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court revives suit from victims of botched FBI raid
Advertisement The couple barricaded themselves in a closet. The agents dragged Cliatt out at gunpoint and handcuffed him. They told Martin to keep her hands up as she pleaded to see her 7-year-old son, who had been asleep in another room. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As they questioned Cliatt, he gave his address. It was different from the one for the suspected gang hideout the agents had a warrant to enter. One of the agents, Lawrence Guerra, had earlier identified the correct house, which he said looked similar and was nearby, on a different street. But on the morning of the raid, he said he went to the wrong house because he had been misdirected by his GPS device. That could not be confirmed, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, as Guerra threw the device away not long after the raid. Gorsuch added that the agents had overlooked plenty of indications they were in the wrong place — a street sign, a house number, and a different car parked in the driveway. Advertisement The couple sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and other claims but lost in the lower courts on a variety of grounds. Notably, that government officials' actions are protected from lawsuits when they perform a duty that involves discretion. The case turned on the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sometimes allows suits against the government for money notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which ordinarily bars such suits unless the government consents. A 1974 amendment to the law made it easier to sue over wrong-house raids after notorious ones in Collinsville, Ill., but the law is subject to a tangled series of 13 exceptions. 'If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?' Gorsuch asked in his opinion. 'The answer is not as obvious as it might be.' The court clarified aspects of the analysis of when such cases are allowed and returned the case to the lower courts for further consideration. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said 'there is reason to think' that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, saying that Congress had amended the law in response to the Collinsville raids to allow cases like this one. Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. 'The Supreme Court was right to let the Martin family's case move forward for the FBI's botched raid of their home,' he said in a statement. 'The court's decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in
