this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
320 points (82.1% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2496 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
320
The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states | It is no longer safe to organize a protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas. (www.vox.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/politics
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 191 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That basically right?

Yep, you got it!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, so, that's a nothingburger. Thanks for calling out Vox.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xhieron 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

Rage bait

It's what makes the enshitified internet continue to coerce engagement from it's viewers

[–] BleatingZombie 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Would you mind explaining what the actual takeaway should be? My media literacy isn't great

[–] setsneedtofeed 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Its 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.”

[–] setsneedtofeed 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It then ruled that the First Amendment does not apply “where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.”

Did they just make it easier for Trump to be held accountable for Jan 6?

[–] [email protected] 47 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, because Jan 6 happened under the jurisdiction of the DC circuit, not the 5th circuit.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Darn it. That is disappointing.

[–] ZoopZeZoop 4 points 7 months ago

With Trump, everything is.

[–] disguy_ovahea 35 points 7 months ago

There goes right to assembly. Freedom of speech up next. SCOTUS is systematically disassembling our Bill of Rights.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] A_Random_Idiot 17 points 7 months ago

why not both.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

Clarence Thomas would vote against African American interests? Vanish the thought! /s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RubberElectrons 4 points 7 months ago

Yep.

[–] DevCat 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So, when trump loses his reelection bid, and his cult takes to the streets...

[–] NegativeLookBehind 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What if he wins, and we can’t protest anything he does?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

protest anyway. with guns.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

If the police show up it will either be too late or to protect their buddies.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

theres a reason i say the us is not a democracy.

[–] _sideffect 14 points 7 months ago

That's one step closer to dictatorship

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

Oh oh oh, try using the names of Supreme Court members as the official organizer for any and all protests. Who's going to stop you?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Can we abolish the dog shit SCOTUS we have rn? These old bastards need to just keel the fuck over already.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The best option would be to increase its size — it was designed to have as many justices as there are appeals circuits, but the number of appeals circuits was rasied without increasing the size of the Supreme Court. Doing that will require electing a Democratic President and at least 50 willing Democratic senators (eg: a total of 55+ Democrats in the Senate)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thomas could be indicted & arrested on corruption charges today, on facts that are publicly known about him.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

However meritorious this might be, the Republicans would still have a 5-seat majority on the Supreme Court.

[–] Sanctus 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yesterday was the time to riot. Fascism is winning in grassroot red areas.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Well that's to bad, I was busy yesterday

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Never too late to riot. Just more dangerous

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

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

[–] uberdroog 7 points 7 months ago

Everyone needs to leave these states. They don't deserve you, the power or the money that comes from it all. Ghost towns and a couple of rich white dudes. Make plans and get out. The grass is greener.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Mmm, freedumb!

load more comments
view more: next ›