Alia Beard Rau

The Republic | azcentral.com

As Arizonans protest the actions of President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, the Republican-led state Legislature is advancing a bill that could silence future protests before they ever happen — and financially punish the organizers.

Bill supporters cited "paid protesters" who intentionally start riots as the reason for the need for the bill. Some allegations of paid protesters during the presidential campaign have been debunked. Some Republican members of Congress also recently have alleged that protesters at recent town hall meetings have been paid.

The Senate passed Senate Bill 1142 along party lines this week amid heated debate, with Republican supporters arguing the bill is needed to prevent paid protesters from intentionally causing riots and Democratic opponents saying it will have a chilling effect on free speech.

ROBERTS: Arizona Senate votes to silence protests. No, really...

Here's what the bill would actually do, and not do.

What would be a crime?

Rioting already is against the law in Arizona, and is defined as two or more people using or threatening force or violence in a way that disturbs the peace.

SB 1142 would expand the definition to allow charges if the force or violence results in property damage. Because it defines rioting as "two or more people acting together," it could allow protest organizers to be prosecuted if someone else is involved in the rioting — even if that someone isn't part of the organizing group. It could also allow organizers to be prosecuted just for planning an event that prosecutors believe could result in rioting.

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said in years past, riots were spontaneous events. But with social media, he said, that's no longer the case.

"You have almost full-time agents of provocateurs. A lot of them are ideologues; some of them are anarchists," he said during debate on the proposal. "I believe a riot should be stopped before it starts. We can now go after organizing groups that are preparing and planning and nip it in the bud before they destroy our community, before they injure our citizens, before they destroy our reputation."

The bill also would add rioting to the list of offenses that can be addressed under state racketeering statutes.

What's racketeering?

This bill would put rioting under the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes that are typically used to prosecute organized crime and allow police to take items acquired through criminal activity. The sentence for racketeering can include more than a year in prison. It would allow police to seize protesters' or organizers' assets and make them financially responsible for any property damage.

Is this constitutional?

The bill passed the Senate Rules Committee, with Senate staff attorneys saying they believe the bill is constitutional.

MONTINI: Senate GOP passes another bill to Shut. You. Up.

The American Civil Liberties of Arizona disagrees. It is watching the bill closely.

"People are concerned," said ACLU of Arizona lobbyist Will Gaona. "What we heard from legislators on the floor made it clear they are not just envisioning this as a means to punish those who engaged in a riot but those considering exercising their First Amendment rights. It's intended to chill First Amendment speech."

Does Arizona really have a problem?

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, said the bill would target those who pay violent agitators, but he cited no examples of this occurring.

“They pay these thugs to come in there and bust up a picket line,” he said. “You know, if someone’s paying for that, and funding that, we should go after that. We should hold their feet to the fire.”

Bill supporters mentioned recent protests in Berkeley, Calif., and Washington, D.C., pointing to controversial former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulous and protesters on the University of California-Berkeley campus who blocked him from speaking, smashed windows and lit fires. They've given no Arizona examples.

Gaona said the idea of paid protesters in these instances are not real.

"They are trying to connect this myth of paid protesters in order to justify the bill," he said. "But this idea of paid protesters is a myth and not an actual problem. I'm not sure there are organizations out there funding anarchists. Anarchists act the way they do because that's who they are."

Is this really about politics?

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said she's "heartsick watching what is going on in our country."

"There is a difference between a protest and a riot. What we've been watching a lot of is riots," she said. "How do we as a people ... move from one administration to the other without disruption? You must do it peacefully and civilly."

Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, said riots never develop out of thin air.

"Martin Luther King said a riot is the language of the unheard," he said. "With this bill, you turn our back on everybody living in atrocious conditions and continue to dismiss their concerns."

Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, called allegations of paid protesters "fake news."

"I find it a little suspect we are all of a sudden trying to go after First Amendment activity in a more forceful way now that that activity is coming from the left rather than the right," she said. "The idea that people are being paid to come out and do that, that is fake news. We have more important things we should be doing."

Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, an attorney, said Arizona already has laws in place to address true rioters.

"We have assault charges, aggravated assault charges, criminal damage, threatening and intimidating, disturbing the peace," he said. "They are already adequate."

He said the bill would chill public speech at a vital time for the United States.

"When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil ... that's exactly when people take to the streets," he said. "Sometimes they yell. Sometimes they go too far. But that's exactly when we should be listening the closest."

RELATED: Do Arizona lawmakers want to stop residents from passing laws?