COLUMBUS, Ohio — A controversial law and order bill was introduced this week, aimed at violent protests.

The proposal would strengthen punishment for any disorderly conduct at protests, if signed into law. However, some argue the bill goes too far in holding innocent people responsible.

"When misconduct occurs, when the law is broken, those responsible will be held accountable," said Ohio House Representative Cindy Abrams (R-Harrison).

Abrams and fellow Hamilton County House Republican Sara Carruthers are the primary sponsors of legislation they announced that would increase penalties for rioting, looting, violence, blocking roads, and vandalizing public property. It stems from demonstrations around the state this past summer, in response to the deaths of George Floyd and others.

The bill would also create stiffer penalties if someone caused any physical harm — even more so if a law enforcement official was the target, and even more still if the officer was seriously hurt.

In turn, the bill would also allow affected officers to sue whomever was responsible.​

Finally, the bill would allow for a person who thinks they are in danger to take any steps, including using deadly force, to get out of a precarious situation.

“When businesses are boarded up and shut down as a result of irresponsible actions of a few agitators, law-abiding citizens suffer the loss. Small business owners lose (and) jobs are lost,” said Carruthers.​

The co-sponsors of House Bill 784 say this is a common sense bill and does not infringe on Ohioans' First Amendment rights.​ The ACLU of Ohio disagrees and says this is a "dangerous, unneeded, and unconstitutional bill encouraging and endorsing vigilante actions."

"The bill raises a number of significant questions," said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin.

Entin said the First Amendment says a speaker is not responsible for the actions of others unless that speaker incites the third party to engage in violence.

"Simply organizing a demonstration where some hanger-on or opportunist engages in violence is not sufficient under the First Amendment to hold the organizer liable, and I think that this bill could do that," Entin said.​​

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court sent back a lawsuit to Louisiana on this very topic. A Baton Rouge police officer, who suffered brain trauma after someone threw something at him during a protest four years ago, sued an organizer of a Black Lives Matter protest for negligence, although the person who threw the object was never identified.​

The bill has nine co-sponsors, all of whom are Republicans, and has yet to be referred to a committee.​