South Carolina Senate Bill S0739

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/13/26

Caption

Incitement to Riot

Summary

S0739 would expand South Carolina’s riot laws by creating new statutory definitions for “person,” “funding entity,” and “riot,” and by expressly treating a riot as including a violent protest. The bill broadens criminal liability to reach not only people who are personally present at a riot, but also those who instigate, promote, fund, provide materials for, or otherwise aid a riot. It also clarifies that peaceful protest and petition remain lawful and are not intended to be covered by the riot provisions. The bill further authorizes property owners to sue funding entities for damages caused by a mob or riot, and states that a funding entity may be solely responsible for damages when it provided materials to or for the riot. It also allows the Attorney General, solicitors, or their designees to bring proceedings against funding entities under the state’s civil enforcement provisions. In addition, law enforcement officers called out by the Governor during a riot or unlawful assemblage would be permitted to use dye or paint to identify persons who may be charged under the riot statute.

Impact

If enacted, S0739 would amend multiple sections of Title 16 of the South Carolina Code to expand both criminal and civil exposure related to riots. It would create a new category of liable actor—funding entities, including individuals, businesses, partnerships, and nonprofits that intentionally finance or materially support a riot—and make them subject to prosecution, civil damages claims, and enforcement actions. The bill would also modify law enforcement powers during riot-related deployments by authorizing the use of dye or paint for identification purposes. These changes would affect protesters, alleged organizers, donors, material supporters, property owners, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong law-and-order approach aimed at deterring riot-related violence and holding organizers and supporters financially accountable. At the same time, the explicit protection for peaceful protest suggests an effort to distinguish lawful demonstration from unlawful disorder.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s extension of liability beyond direct participants to “funding entities” and those who provide material support, which could raise concerns about overbreadth, chilling effects on speech and association, and the difficulty of proving intent to instigate or aid a riot. Another likely dispute is the bill’s definition of riot as including a “violent protest,” which may be viewed by critics as potentially sweeping in protest activity that escalates into violence. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability for those who finance or facilitate destructive conduct, while opponents would likely focus on civil liberties and the risk of punishing lawful advocacy or protest support.