riot boosting (uncountable)
- (US, neologism, law) Protest activities that encourage rioting.
2019 March 28, Nicholas Kusnetz, “More States Crack Down on Pipeline Protesters, Including Supporters Who Aren’t Even on the Scene”, in Inside Climate News[1], archived from the original on 4 June 2020:"‘Riot boosting’ is an unusual and new term. You might be asking yourself what that means, and I think protesters will too," said Vera Eidelman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has tracked the bills. "I think it poses a unique threat to speech and appears to be targeted at protests. It uses words like 'encouraging' and 'advising' that are very broad and refer to a category of protected speech."
2019, Larry J. Schweiger, The Climate Crisis and Corrupt Politics, page 109:The law allows state, and local governments to seek civil damages from activists or groups engaging in "riot boosting", a term which the state defines as someone who "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force of violence."
2020 February 19, Stephen Groves, “House passes ‘riot boosting’ bill amid protests”, in AP News[2]:A judge found parts of last year’s “riot boosting” laws to be unconstitutional, in part because they were aimed at demonstrations against the Keystone XL pipeline.
2020, Ashutosh Bhagwat, Our Democratic First Amendment, page 152:South Dakota has adopted a law that holds a person liable for civil damages if he or she engages in “riot boosting,” defined to include a person who “advises” or “encourages” another to engage in violence, even if the individual did not even participate in the […]
2020 August 19, Arielle Zionts, “Group protests Philip KXL pipeline work camp opening in September”, in Rapid City Journal:A third banner said “Kristi Noem, we are not a riot” and “We defeated it once, we’ll defeat it again” — a reference to the current “riot boosting” law that was created after a federal judge said parts of the old law were unconstitutional.
