Should protest organizers be required to carry insurance?

[CivilDiscourse]

Do you have any insurance companies in mind that would consider insuring people who were intent on taking part in demonstrations and/or protests, given all the potential risks that attend such events?

Go back an read the OP about how this would work, you apparently have only read the post you were tagged in.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Go back an read the OP about how this would work, you apparently have only read the post you were tagged in.

Given the billions of damage from the BLM protests that devolved into riots, the damage to the capitol from the Jan 6th protest that devolved into a riot, should protest organizers be required to carry insurance?

The insurance would be used to pay off property damage, and injuries suffered by the city/businesses/populace from protesters or rioters. If a protest organizer cannot afford, or refuses to purchase the insurance, they will be denied a permit, and not be allowed to protest.

What are your thoughts?

That OP offers no suggestions as to what particular providers would be involved. Nor whether any insurance providers would even consider being prepared to insure individuals [including organisers] who intended to take part in demonstrations and/or protests, given all the potential risks that attend such events.

[rogue06]

Given the billions of damage from the BLM protests that devolved into riots, the damage to the capitol from the Jan 6th protest that devolved into a riot, should protest organizers be required to carry insurance?

The insurance would be used to pay off property damage, and injuries suffered by the city/businesses/populace from protesters or rioters. If a protest organizer cannot afford, or refuses to purchase the insurance, they will be denied a permit, and not be allowed to protest.

What are your thoughts?

I suspect such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. Just like you can't charge a poll tax when people exercise their right to vote, you can't force them to pay in order to exercise their right to assemble and protest.

[CivilDiscourse]

That OP offers no suggestions as to what particular providers would be involved. Nor whether any insurance providers would even consider being prepared to insure individuals [including organisers] who intended to take part in demonstrations and/or protests, given all the potential risks that attend such events.

It's a matter of pricing appropriately. Businesses would step up if the insurance was mandated. Or of course, they can simply choose not to protest.

[rogue06]

It's a matter of pricing appropriately. Businesses would step up if the insurance was mandated. Or of course, they can simply choose not to protest.

Meaning only those with deep pockets will be allowed to protest. If you're poor you no longer have that constitutional right.

[Cow Poke]

We've seen enough protests erupt into violence over the past 4+ years to recognize that there is an inherent risk in the protest.

Do you think whag, Juvenal, oxmixmudd, Hypatia_Alexandria, Stoic or others will chime in. They seem to be silent here.

H_A can't NOT chime in - she's always looking for ways to demonstrate her profound ignorance --- the others, probably not. Maybe Stoic.

[Cow Poke]

I suspect such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. Just like you can't charge a poll tax when people exercise their right to vote, you can't force them to pay in order to exercise their right to assemble and protest.

And 'organizations' like BLM would simply ignore it - their little gatherings are supposedly spontaneous and happen at night.

[Sparko]

Since these aren't planned and sponsored events, but riots, there is no way to hold anyone accountable and to sell insurance to. While BLM might have instigated the riots, they were not "planned" events where they went to the city and said, "Hey we are going to have a protest downtown on tuesday, we need a permit, here is our insurance"

They just stoked the fire and watched when people spontaneously rioted and destroyed property.