Updated 4-27-19: Last chance to submit testimony, with a possible Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee vote this week on SB 33, which would criminalize protests at oil and gas infrastructure way beyond ordinary trespass or even criminal mischief penalties. The bill also targets organizations seen to support such protests with fines of 10x those imposed on individuals, up to $100,000, clearly meant to chill dissent and free speech. 

The bill singles out protests at oil and gas infrastructure, among other specified places, for felony charges for criminal mischief and other activities that are normally considered misdemeanors (as specified in the bill). It makes non-violent trespassing on oil and gas infrastructure subject to much greater punishment than actions elsewhere that even risk harm to people!  (see punishments for 2911.211. (A)(1)  vs. (A)(2) below:

If this (pictured) is “tampering,” it will mean activists practicing such nonviolent direct action to expose the high crimes of the oil industry will be subject to draconian fines and felony charges, and organizations deemed to promote the activity will be subject to ten times the fines leveled against individuals, even though the organizations likely have no control over the actions of individuals.

Ohio Senate Bill 33 (similar to Ohio SB 250, which passed the Senate last session but was not then considered by the Ohio House) is a dangerous assault on civil liberties and free speech. It is unnecessary, since trespass is already covered by Ohio law. The legislation is clearly meant to intimidate individuals and, even more dangerously, non-profit organizations that organize people to speak out against assaults by the oil and gas industry against our communities, climate, and public health. Under the bill, organizations can be held liable for others’ actions through guilt by association, with ten times greater penalties than penalties individuals would receive. This can only be intended to squelch environmental advocacy, so essential at this time of accelerating climate chaos.

SB 33 is vague, arbitrary, inconsistent with the Ohio Revised Code, unnecessary, and clearly unconstitutional. It violates due process by arbitrarily – with no definition- singling out certain infrastructure that it merely labels, with no justification or definition, “critical.” It thus targets people and even more so organizations deemed to support actions at these arbitrarily labeled sites for unfair extra punishment, a violation of due process, and is clearly intended to chill dissent, a fundamental violation of First Amendment rights. The specification of ten times higher penalties for “organizations” deemed to support covered activity (who clearly cannot control actions of people — including agent provocateurs often embedded in protests by industry or the government — is clearly intended to intimidate, relying on this chilling effect that has been clearly ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple decisions since the 1950s. 

As Inside Climate News recently reported, “‘Even where these bills are simply introduced, even if they do not move, even if they do not become law, they have potential to chill free speech and curtail activism,’ said Maggie Ellinger-Locke, a staff attorney with Greenpeace. ‘We’re hearing from people on the frontlines of activism in these states that these bills frighten them.'”

Legislation here: ohiosenate.gov/legislation/GA133-SB-33. See Senate Judiciary Committee website or Buckeye Environmental Network’s resource page for testimony given previously on SB 33 and SB 250 (last session’s version).

Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee members:

Sample letter. Please PERSONALIZE. Personal letters carry a lot more weight than copy and paste letters. Thanks.

Dear Senator Eklund,

Please oppose Senate Bill 33, an anti-democratic and redundant bill designed to protect the assets of fossil fuel industries, while intimidating and bankrupting conscientious objectors and their supporters.

Laws already exist to charge those who make the hard choice to participate in nonviolent civil disobedience in our communities.  Industries have the right and the means to protect their property, and citizens have the right to protest industrial activity that we believe is harmful or immoral.  Industries have profits to protect, and citizens have health and safety to preserve, for ourselves and our children.  When these two objectives clash, we have a court system to help determine which objective takes priority.

 SB 33 is an unnecessary bill that unfairly targets those rightfully alarmed young citizens who will suffer the most from climate impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry’s decades of denial.  Thank you for opposing Senate Bill 33.

Sincerely, Christine Hughes, Athens

DON’T be fooled by lies coming from Sen. Hoagland’s office. (Bill sponsor, Sen. Hoagland is a member of the rightwing American Legislative Council, which is sponsoring similar bills around the country as discussed in the Inside Climate News piece and elsewhere.) The bill does NOT state that only organizations that “PAY people to protest,” as claimed by Hoagland’s aide, are subject to the draconian fines!! (What real environmental organization pays protestors? NONE!) The bill will penalize organizations deemed to promote actions covered by this bill, even though an organization has no control over what individuals do. These and other lies are intended to obfuscate, silence dissent, and enable an industry-supported bill that will give a free pass to fossil fuel companies to continue wreaking havoc with our communities and our planet. Stop SB 33 now!

Why aren’t hospitals considered ‘critical infrastructure’? And schools? Why is it only dirty fossil fuel corporate infrastructure that’s deemed critical? Because they’re obviously targets of first amendment protests due to their infliction of harm and the urgency, well understood by hundreds of millions of people, to avert climate disaster within the decade. The urgency and seriousness of climate catastrophe, outlined the most recent federal 4th National Climate Assessment (whose first sentence reads: “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”), is well understood by the educated public, including judges, such that the NECESSITY defense has now been used successfully* in courtrooms, even when there has been clear intent to obstruct operation of these sites.

* Note that although this news coverage questions whether the necessity defense was granted, a separate legal analysis (see entry #10 on the Mass. case) notes “At the civil infraction hearing, the judge found all defendants not responsible and acceded to a defense request to note that the ruling was by reason of necessity.” Yes!!

And for some perspective on this bill in relation to ALEC and the larger assault against the climate movement and on strategies used to counter the corporate-government assaults, see the excellent overview by the National Lawyers’ Guild (3/14/19): The Attack on Climate Justice Movements.

Check Judiciary Committee’s website each Friday (late afternoon) or write to acfanohio [at] gmail.com to be notified of future hearings and  opportunities to submit formal testimony. There’s always very little notice from the Senate committee chair, so preparing testimony ahead is highly advised.