The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states
www.vox.com
It is no longer safe to organize a protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas.
  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    7·
    7 months ago

    C’mon Vox…this article is straight garbage.

    First you link to the wrong god damned instance of this case at SCOTUSBLOG (McKesson v Doe 2 instead of McKesson v Doe 3) you then don’t link, or you know just post, Justice Sotomayor’s remarks about why SCOTUS didn’t hear this case for the third time.

    Of course you probably chose not to link, or state, her full remarks because if you HAD then you wouldn’t have been able to write that inflammatory headline.

    SCOTUS already resolved this in 2023 with Counterman v. Colorado. It’s right there on pages 14/15 in the linked PDF.

    Modern Media is a raging dumpster fire of inflammatory bullshit.

    Edit: In case it’s not clear this Vox article was carefully crafted to leave the reader ignorant and outraged.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      3·
      7 months ago

      From the remarks:

      In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective stand- ard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “de- mand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punish- ment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

      …

      Because this Court may deny certi- orari for many reasons, including that the law is not in need of further clarification, its denial today expresses no view about the merits of Mckesson’s claim. Although the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent deci- sion in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do.

      If I’m reading this right, this is basically saying “we just had a case about this, and the ruling is clear. Lower courts can go back and deal with it. There’s no reason for us to take it up again.” That basically right?

    • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      7 months ago

      Oh FFS. I just read Sotomayor’s statement, and the Vox article is just a flat out lie (and apparently nobody else in the comments bothered to fact check it). You’re doing God’s work, Buelldozer.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      1·
      7 months ago

      I was pleasantly surprised to see this top comment digging into the case. I was very confused by the SCOTUSBLOG link and dug around on my own wondering why everything was from 2020 at first, then going back to the article and feeling like it was really off the rails.

      • SSTF@lemmy.world
        2·
        7 months ago

        Looks like the standard has already been re-affirmed in other cases as incitement (knowing and intentional words to imminently cause lawless action) in order for a lawsuit to succeed.

        The Louisiana Supreme Court did find that first responders (police, fire,EMT, etc) are indeed allowed to sue. There was some question of if they were disqualified from suing under the theory that getting attacked in a riot is just a job hazard for them. Vox might have taken offense to that for some reason.

        This is all civil too, so no jail time or charges, just a legal fight about standards for culpability for the purposes of a civil case.

  • metaStatic@kbin.social
    1·
    7 months ago

    Peaceful protest was the compromise, and it seems like they’ve forgotten why, maybe you should remind them.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    1·
    7 months ago

    Tbh I already think that the fact that you have to get a goddamn permit for a protest is infringement. Imo our ability to organize, plan, and protest should be unbarred, not contingent on any sort of permit or paperwork.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    01·
    7 months ago

    I wonder if they aren’t touching it because they want to address this question in context of considering Jan. 6. They don’t want to establish a ruling that could be used against Trump, so they are taking time to get all their ducks in a row.

    I have no legal background so this is just idle speculation.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      1·
      7 months ago

      I wonder if they aren’t touching it

      They aren’t touching it because they already DID with Counterman v. Colorado back in 2023. The issue is done and Sotomayor made this plain in her full remarks.

      This Vox article was carefully crafted to leave the reader ignorant and outraged.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      01·
      7 months ago

      It’s more likely that they’re not touching it because they want to suppress African-American protests. [I am also not a lawyer]