Rewrite the riot bills.

Trying to curb riots is commendable. So is clarifying the rules of engagement for police when faced with demonstrations that turn violent. But doing so with laws that could curb peaceful demonstrations and free speech is not.

State Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield) says that’s not his intent in introducing three bills aimed at defining and cracking down on riots. The former police officer says he just wants to keep everybody safe, especially in the wake of last year’s Sherman Park riots in Milwaukee.

But laws often have unintended consequences. And the unintended consequences of these bills could well have a chilling effect on a tradition of protest that goes back to the Boston Tea Party (which was definitely a shining example of criminal behavior).

One of the bills would define a riot as a group of three or more people that either “constitutes a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury” or threatens to do so, the Journal Sentinel reported Friday. Those who participate in such a riot would be guilty of a felony.

First, three people is a pretty low threshold for a riot. Sounds to me more like a mugging. And if only one of them acts violently or threatens to do so, all three could be guilty of a felony. That seems a bit unfair.

Matthew Rothschild of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, pointed out at a committee hearing on the bills Thursday that it was already a crime for demonstrators to harm another person, damage property or refuse to comply with police requests to disperse.

“We really don’t need more criminal statutes that cover essentially the same ground,” Rothschild said.

He’s right. There already are too many redundant laws on the books. Why add another?

And Bill Lueders of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council noted in an email on Friday that “It sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem. I thought we already had laws against violence. Do we really need laws that punish participants in a protest if it happens to become violent?”

The bills also would make it a misdemeanor to block streets in a riot and to participate in a riot while armed. Those measures are easier to understand.

Mike Crivello, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, which supports the bills, said police officers worry about the presence of guns in riots and about the possibility that unruly crowds could block streets to keep emergency vehicles from reaching affected areas. Those certainly are legitimate concerns.

But the free speech and assembly implications of this legislation are still worrisome, and of concern to folks across the political spectrum.

Spiros says he has no intention of clamping down on law-abiding protesters. “If we need to take a look at that … I’m more than willing to do that,” he said, the Journal Sentinel reported.

There’s no “if” about it. Spiros needs to make sure the bills are free of those unintended consequences. Make sure they guarantee the rights of peaceful protesters. Make sure they’re actually necessary

Anything less would be as un-American as a Tory’s red coat.