By in Rhode Island’s Future
EDITOR’S NOTE: I have often referred to Rep. Justin Price
(R-Richmond) as perhaps the dumbest legislator in the General Assembly. He has
ZERO record of achievement, but a penchant for supporting hard-right causes.
Among them: far-right militias, anti-vaccination, anti-planning and in this
case, legalized vehicular homicide.
An automotive version of the infamous “Stand
Your Ground” laws, it would give motorists immunity if they kill or injure a
person engaged in a protest that blocks traffic. Price was motivated by getting
stuck in a traffic jam caused by one such protest, according to his statements
at a hearing on the bill.
Like his wacky South County colleagues, his bill got him national attention, as did Rep. Blake “Flip Filippi’s bill to have Rhode Island secede
from Eastern Time and go to Atlantic Time to avoid daylight savings time, or
Sen. Elaine Morgan’s odious call for Syrian refugees to the US to be put in
concentration camps.
South County used to have mostly good legislators, but these three
give us a bad name. – W. Collette
If passed, Representative Justin Price‘s bill, H5690,
“would provide that a person driving an automobile who is exercising due care
and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration
and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way shall be immune from civil
liability for such injury.” Price is a Republican representing District 39, which
includes Richmond, Exeter and
a portion of Hopkinton.
State law already exempts
drivers “exercising due care” from civil liability in the event of bodily
injury, so the law is at best redundant, but at its worst the bill seems to be
excusing bad behavior by drivers who do not like being inconvenienced by
protesters.
“This stems back to 2014,
when we had some protesters blocking 95 in Providence,” said Price by way of
explanation, “It’s really a safety issue… During this protest I was stuck in
traffic, I witnessed cars traveling south in a northbound lane, exiting on
on-ramps, just because people are confused, scared… protests can very quickly
become a riot, so people want to not be involved in that so if someone is
demonstrating due care, they should be able to pass through… peaceful protests…
peaceful protests should let people pass through and there would be no
injuries… so I feel that this bill… people should be able to protest and also
proceed, travel freely without any civil liability.”
Shanna
Wells, a local organizer who helped pull off the Million Woman March
in February, was the first of eight people testifying against Price’s bill. No
one spoke in favor. Wells called the bill “poorly conceived” and said the bill
threatens the protections the American public enjoys under the Bill of Rights.
“It’s no secret that since
November of 2016 there has been an increase in peaceable assemblies and
petitions for redress of grievances. A majority of those actions have been led
and attended by those who are identified as politically left. The majority of
this bill’s original sponsors are from the GOP and so the submission of this
bill has the chill of censorship around it and sends a tacit message that its
okay to hit protesters with your car. Maybe this time those protesters are liberals,
but maybe next time they’ll be conservative…”
Price was visibly agitated
by much of what Wells’ said. As she finished, Price asked, “So you consider
peaceful protest blocking cars on 95?”
“I would consider peaceful
protest means there’s no violence involved in their protesting,” said Wells.
When Steven Brown of
the RI ACLU finished
his testimony, Price asked if people blocking the highway are engaged in
peaceful protest, but didn’t end there. He wanted to know if Brown believed
that people blocking the highway have “more rights” than people traveling on
the highway.
As Brown attempted to
answer, Price cut him off. “But if you’re illegally, if you’re illegally, if
you’re violating the law…”
“That’s making an excuse
for someone to run you over,” said Brown.
“I’m not- Does it say ‘run
you over?'” asked Price, angrily pointing at the bill on his screen, “Does it
say ‘run you over?'” As Brown attempted to answer, Price merely repeated the
question again, drowning him out.
When Rep Edie Ajello, who was chairing
the committee at that moment, attempted to intervene, (Chair Cale Keable was
temporarily out of the room) Price asked Ajello, “Does it say ‘run you over?'”
“It does not,” admitted
Brown. “People blocking the street because of a protest or demonstration should
not lose any rights they have or be chilled from engaging in [a protest or
demonstration] as opposed to somebody who’s blocking the street along with many
others because they’re celebrating the Patriots. I think that is a clear
violation of the First Amendment, and an attempt to chill protests and
demonstrations, the exercise of free speech rights.”
Price asked if not passing
the legislation “chills people traveling in their daily lives when there are
protesters blocking them and they’re going to be held liable for gradually
moving through a protest?”
Chair Keable interrupted
then. “Representative Price, stay on the bill.”
“This is the bill!”
objected Price.
When Michael Araujo, executive director of RI Jobs With Justice talked about the bill allowing drivers
to “run over people” Price exploded once again.
“Does this say ‘run over
people?'” asked Price, “Does this say ‘run over people?'”
“It doesn’t say ‘run over
people.'” admitted Araujo.
“Why are you saying ‘run
over people?'”
“Because it eliminates a
penalty for killing,” said Araujo. “Tell me how it does not do that.”
“Did you read the bill?”
asked Price.
“I did read the bill,”
said Araujo. “I also read the first version of that bill from North Dakota. And it says the same thing.”
As Araujo finished, Price
asked, “Do you think blocking highways is safe?”
“I’d give you the example
of Dr. Martin Luther King,” said Araujo.
Price cut Araujo off. “You
think your First Amendment right is more…”
“Representative Price,”
said Chair Keable, “Your question is not on your bill. If you want to put
something in that criminalizes protest, that’s a different bill. Your bill is
about driving.”
“Right,” said Price.
“If you want to ask him
about the morality and illegality of protest, that’s not what this bill is,”
said Keable.
“First off,” said Price,
“This bill is because I was stuck in that protest…”
“The Black Lives Matter protest?” asked Araujo.
“Whoever blocked the road
out there,” said Price, “It was a protest, close to being a riot, I would say.
I was stuck in that melee. I was watching cars going southbound on northbound
roads, exiting on on-ramps… It was chaos.”
Price, who claims to not
know the nature of the protest, or anything much about why he was stuck in
traffic, does somehow know enough to make the claim that the protest was “close
to being a riot.”
Back
when he was a union organizer, before becoming a reverend, Duane Clinker was
on many picket lines, in many tense situations. He’s seen picketers hit by
cars. He’s seen guns drawn. “It’s very important,” said Clinker, “not just to
not have a chilling effect on free speech, but to not have permission, in
effect, on using a two thousand or three thousand pound object to hit
somebody.”
The
next speaker was speaking on behalf of a ninety year old woman who had waited a
long time to protest the bill. The committee meeting ran over four hours, and
this was one of the last bills called. Eventually the older woman had to leave.
“I think this bill is
sick. I think it’s ugly. The whole reason people protest is to call attention
to injustice… I really have a hard time, even imagining someone who would write
this bill. It’s so inhumane. It’s unconscionable. Unconscionable that it’s all
right to hit a protester. It’s really hard to imagine.”
For
the last two speakers, Price was stewing, but not bubbling over. This wasn’t
the case with the next speaker, Matthew Blair, of the National Lawyer’s Guild.
“We can’t just look at the
text of the bill, even when the text of the bill is somewhat confusing and very
short,” said Blair, “we have to look at the underlying motivations. When I read
this I wondered why anyone would propose it now. We’ve had three or four big
protests, very peaceful protests, no arrests, in the past month. It’s only been
a month and a half. And so I thought, why would anyone submit this? This person
must really love our President. This person must really not like refugees, not
like women…”
Price exploded with an unintelligible utterance of some sort.
Chair Keable intervened.
“Matthew, you’re off topic.”
Blair got back on the
bill, but Chair Keable interrupted when Blair seemed to imply that it is
constitutional to block highways. Blair cited Williams v Wallace,
a case concerning John Lewis‘s freedom march.
“So conversely,” asked
Price, “you think that your protest should Trump anybody’s right to travel. Is
that what you’re saying? And I have one more question. You know you keep saying
the expression ‘Black Lives Matter’ and our new president, Donald J Trump, who I do like, seeing how you
brought it up, so, I’d like to ask you a question. So you work for Black Lives
Matter?”
“No.”
“You represent lawyers
that do? Do you represent protesters?” asked Price.
“Hang on, hang on, hang
on,” said Chair Keable, “Mr. Price, one question, one answer.”
“My question is,” said
Price, “You brought up Black Lives Matter and you represent protesters,
correct, as a lawyer?”
“That is correct,” said
Blair.
“Who pays you?” asked
Price.
“It is a volunteer
organization, done pro bono,” responded Blair.
“It’s done pro bono,” said Price, “from where? Do you accept any
money from George Soros?”
“No we don’t, sir,” said
Blair.
Chair Keable then asked
Blair to explain to Price what “pro bono” meant since Price is not a lawyer.
“Oh,” said Blair. “For
free.”
“Okay,” said Price.
The bill was held for
further study.
The
next two speakers on the bill did an excellent job of exposing the legal and
moral problems with Price’s bill.
Steve Ahlquist is an award-winning journalist, writer, artist and
founding member of the Humanists of Rhode Island, a non-profit group dedicated
to reason, compassion, optimism, courage and action. The views expressed are
his own and not necessarily those of any organization of which he is a member.
atomicsteve@gmail.com
and Twitter: @SteveAhlquist
