Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
which in turn allows for the organizer or organizers of a protest to “be held liable for the illegal actions of someone else who attended the protest.”
The DOJ: Holds Donald Trump liable for the illegal actions of all Jan 6 protestors.
Conservatives: "Wait, not like that!"
This is legitimately dangerous though. Now big oil can just hire an actor to throw a rock and a climate protest can be shut down. Not to mention police protests are pretty much illegal now.
They would never do that. They've done it all the time before, but surely they've learned their lesson.
The stakes are much higher now. It used to amount to a handful of arrests. Now the entire protest can be shut down and charged.
The US s rapidly devolving into an anti free speech nation.
Makes me think this is what the TikTok ban is really about. They don't see themselves as being able to control the narrative and are blaming TikTok.
The right to protest goes beyond free speech. It is one of the core balances of power between the governed and their government. Without it we are little more than slaves to the will of the powerful.
The right to protest is also a protection for the government. People will have grievances, if they can't express themselves peacefully then they'll express themselves violently.
You know the saying surrounding the learning of history and the dangers of the lack thereof?
It's not cynical enough.
It's always thinking "this time, my knowledge and lack of scruples will supersede the human condition!" with the regressive, self-deluded authoritarian mind.
The tragedy of the "doomed to repeat it" and "doesn't repeat, but it rhymes" aphorisms both is always going to be a function of linear time, not the wit of the self-styled Masters of the times.
Sucks to live on human timescales during these times tho, I think every pen since antiquity agrees.
Has Biden’s response to an entire generation of people calling for a ceasefire shaken you of the notion that our opinions matter to the ruling class? Cause if not, I’ve got some bad news.
If my post history doesn't make it obvious: every social contract has been broken. Riot.
The constitution is a joke
Trump tower, or just the men’s room at the Supreme Court?
I bet Clarence has some mini rolls in his borrowed luxury rv
It is not being banned, it's being forced to separate itself from its Chinese parent company. Hell, no longer having ties to the CCP would open it up to far more free speech.
And people keep acting like this is some new thing. It isn't. Other app companies have been forced to separate themselves from China. This isn't unusual.
This isn't correct. Here's what the actual denial of the case says (which I'll take from an earlier comment of mine on this in another thread):
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.
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." It's a procedural nothingburger.
American legal parlance is a nothingburger, not its actual real-world effects. This ruling has considerable effects in the states it's relevant in.
Not really. The new precedent is clear, and they're being told to go back and fix their rulings in light of that.
As soon as they defend it, people will start organizing against the SC. I mean, I would if I lived anywhere close to DC for Roe v Wade alone.
Well yea they have been told to help squash the labor organizing. Everything that’s going on right now, price gouging, layoffs while posting record profits, attacks against the NLRB, the housing markets and rental price gouging and scams, the push for child labor, the healthcare “crisis”, the extraction of our data to AI companies, the misinformation that is being pumped into every social media and MSM outlet is a direct attack against our Mainstreet American way of life. Why? Who knows. But you can’t look at every industry and tell me otherwise or that there isn’t some sort of collaboration going on. It’s absolutely intentional.
/shock /s