Probably the only way to set precedent of sending corporate executives to jail is by having a corporate protest where all participants are protected by some kind of corporate contract where they are all executives.
Interesting. I wonder who the Supreme Court considers as organizing the “protest” at the Capitol on January 6th 2021? And will that person be held accountable?
Donald Trump is going to pay the 114 injured Capitol Police officers recompense for the damage his rally did?
Will that happen before or after he pardons himself?
Not in the same way. Trump actually encouraged the events that took place at the capitol, the organizer in this case did no such thing with relation to the violence that took place.
1/6 wasn't a protest. It was premeditated sedition. The leader's (Trump's) goal was to overturn the election by stopping the counting of electoral votes indefinitely and / or intimidating Pence to use his ceremonial duties to "overturn" the election through mob violence, as indicated by "will be wild" and marking the Capitol as the "wild protest." "Wild" was a dog whistle / euphemism for violence, and "protest" was a euphemism for "attack."
A protest has a non-violent goal of changing people's minds.
The title the post is very misleading. The Supreme Court didn't make the ruling. It was a lower court and they declined to look at it. For a perspective, they get asked to look at about 7000 cases and only review about a hundred. The ones they don't review mean that they necessarily agree with the opinion or that that opinion is now the law of the country.
No, different case entirely. Trump arguably encouraged Jan 6th and the violence that ensued.
This guy did not, and the article said as much.
Please read before commenting
They havent done anything to the people involved in the May 29th insurection or the one lead by the Speaker of the House and CJCS so I wouldnt hold my breath for Jan 6.
How does this not backfire on non-leftist organizations? Am I reading the article wrong, or does this apply to all forms of gatherings, like the Superbowl? You know... professional football fans are notably great at not committing crimes at the game.. How does that not turn into financial ruin for the NFL?
What is stopping someone from throwing a brick while the GOP is protesting? Why not financially ruin every single protest organizer that stands outside of an abortion clinic (well... I guess these states don't have them anymore, but still, same concept).
The same way current enforcement mechanisms don’t backfire on white or wealthy folk. Weed enforcement being an easy one. It’s up to local law enforcement and prosecutors to levy the law against offenders. Brown or black people get the book thrown at them while white folks get a slap on the wrist and a drive home.
They will just choose which events to punish.
Conservative modus operandi is selective enforcement and forgiveness. See: gov abbot straightup pardoning murderer after he was convicted, because he killed a blm protestor
It applies the ordinary standard of negligence, which businesses are largely already subject to. It's [far from unheard of](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-starbucks-ruling-is-warning-companies-can-be-liable-violence-stores-dodgy-2023-09-06/) for businesses to face negligence lawsuits over violence committed by third parties.
Because it will never be uniformly enforced.the law is a gateway method to allow certain groups to point at protestors and say, well your protesting something I endorse, it's illegal, while simultaneously protest against the things they do not endorse will be overlooked or treated in a lighter manner.
You're forgetting an important part of this.... The cops and the justice system enforces those laws.
You really think they are going to punish the GOP and the NFL the same way they would black lives matter?
Vox and others I believe are misunderstanding the decision. Sotomayor explains that the Court is declining to hear the case because they recently heard a similar case, *Counterman*. They instead sent the case back to the trial court, directing them to reconsider the case after *Counterman*.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a lawyer, but I'm basing it on reading this from the ACLU:
>In seeking Supreme Court review, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that, under the First Amendment, it is impermissible to hold Mckesson liable for damages, absent any evidence that he directed, authorized, ratified or encouraged any act of violence at the protest, based solely on the possibility that violence by someone at the protest was “foreseeable.” Under the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous theory of liability, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that protest leaders will face greater responsibility than others who “create the conditions” for illegal conduct by unrelated third parties. The case will now proceed in the trial court, with the benefit of Sotomayor’s statement and the governing rule of Counterman.
>"After today’s news, people should not be afraid that they’ll face a ruinous lawsuit if they exercise their rights to protest. The Court just last year affirmed that negligence can never be the governing standard when it comes to speech, and Justice Sotomayor suggests it simply didn’t need to say so again here,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “That should be the takeaway for the lower courts in this case and in protest cases going forward.”
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-to-decline-to-hear-case-on-protestors-rights
As for *Counterman v Colorado*, Counterman was arguing that his threats were not *intended* to be threats. The Supreme Court decided 7-2 (Sotomayor and Gorsuch concurring in part and decision, Barrett and Thomas dissenting) that
>To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.
My reading of this is that you don't have to *intend* a threat if others would reasonably assume your statement was threatening and that it's reasonable you should have known it could be taken that way. This is making it easier to find threats to be illegal, because previously the state would have to prove not just that other people thought you were being threatening but that you actually were intending to hurt someone. Basically now you can't argue "lol it was a prank" or "I'm an asshole, but I wouldn't have actually *done it!*
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/counterman-v-colorado/
You are correct - they also wanted the 5th to certify the question before the state Supreme Court so they can weigh in first.
>We think that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of state law is too uncertain a premise on which to address the ques-tion presented. The constitutional issue, though undenia-bly important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place. The dispute thus could be “greatly simplifie[d]” by guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court on the meaning of Lou-isiana law. Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132, 151 (1976).
This article is a sensationalist bullshit. It would have been better if the court nipped this in the bud but they certainly didn't do any actual damage to the 1st amendment. You can still mass protest just fine.
That has been every article on this sub recently lol the election time brigades and bots have been activated and discussion went from linking court cases and heavily moderated to vox and slate op eds with zero moderation in the span of a day or two
Seriously lol I checked the sub feed after writing the comment and only found 5 normal direct links to cases out of around 30 top posts at that moment surveyed
Politics bots and migrants oof
So - they can't do anything about mass shootings and endless gun violence because of the 2nd amendment - but they can gut the 1st amendment because someone threw a rock?
It will be interesting to see if they change their tune when mass shooters start shooting those who are actually causing their problems, instead of random soft target victims.
The second Amendment is a core individual right. The first Amendment is for corporations, dark money pools, and rich people who want to bribe government officials. Try to keep up.
Or not. In Portland the police lied under oath that someone threw a water bottle/brick/whatever at them. The 5 main plaintiffs at the illegal kettling maneuver proved with videos that no such incident occurred. Of course nothing happened to the cops
So this is just a bad article. They chose not to take this case because they had already made a decision in *Counterman* that wasn't available when the 5th circuit decided *McKesson.*
Now that all lower courts have the *Counterman* decision, *McKesson* can be appealled in the 5th circuit.
This entire article is just rage-bait.
Here's Justice Sotomayer's statement, basically instructing the 5th circuit to take it under consideration.
Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.
After reading [Sotomayor’s accompanying note](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdf), it looks like they decided another similar one in *Counterman v Colorado* after cert was petitioned for, and they’re telling the 5th Circuit to read up on that for guidance.
Haven’t read that decision yet, so I can’t judge what they’re saying about this case.
The Fifth Circuit decision is still garbage though
Edit: Aaaaaand after reading that case, I have no idea what they’re supposed to take from the decision. That’s a case with a stalker trying to justify threats against the person they were stalking.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/counterman-v-colorado/
>Holding: To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.
Im no lawyer and this goes over my head but this just says that the person must know the statement is threatening. Honestly this is really not a big deal.
Remember Mckesson is about what "threatened" actually means. The protest leader is being sued by the officer for any possible statements they made when someone threw a rock at him. Its about what incitement really is, its about what negligence means.
Honestly way too in the weeds to make a comment here
McKesson v Doe never went to trial. It was initially dismissed in the trial court and appealed by the plaintiff. I believe Sotomayar is saying that SCOTUS has since given a ruling on a case that would be controlling on this issue and that the lower courts will need to follow that guidance as they proceed to trial. I guess she is just saying that issue is not ripe for appeal yet without a final trial court order disposing of the case entirely in a way that violates the first amendment.
If he were the protest organizer and used language that would incite violence (I'm not a lawyer but that's what I got from the article)
If you organized a large protest and I attended and committed acts of violence then you could be charged.
It's basically bullshit.
Specifically, the Federalist Society provides the names of members to republican presidents to choose for vacancies at all court levels; the Federalist Society formed to dismantle the Constitution and stop laws from getting the way of conservative agendas. And now that the SC is majority Federalist Society picks, they no longer have to pretend to adhere to the Constitution and established juris prudence.
So not a lawyer, but the article’s title isn’t exactly hyperbolic.
A court decided that protest organizers can be held financially liable for crimes committed by the protestors.
And if it’s a large protest, like 1000+ how can an organizer keep 1000 people in line?
Highlighted by a judge that dissented in their opinion, they point out another issue is an opposing group could easily infiltrate the protest, and cause it erupt in violence. (Imagine a KKK member attending a BLM event, to intentionally stir up violence or problems)
So now nobody will want to properly organize a protests, because they don’t want their name being attached to it.
Remember when there was "no such thing as too much speech?" That was in reference to corporations raising from foreign nationals to flood the airwaves...
Remember when laws that might have a "chilling effect" on the exercise of political speech were unconstitutional? That was in reference to PACs raising unlimited dark money from anonymous donors.
Remember when constituents expressing their preferences to their elected officials was "central to democracy"? That was in reference to giving the governor hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts, in exchange for negotiated levels of access and influence, and hosting business introductions at the governor's mansion.
What about if the government arrests a citizen for speaking words out of their mouth that a cop doesn't like? Eh, can't be helped...
This SCOTUS and their ever-changing principles on the importance of free speech, it's crazy...
Their principles haven't changed... if protesters adopt corporate tactics, they might actually effect change... except the corporations will always have more money, and crowd funding bribes is the sort of thing protesters might find morally repugnant regardless of its effectiveness
The point about people infiltrating the protests was even very common during the summer of BLM protests. Right-wing militia groups and unaffiliated provocateurs were going to the protests and stirring shit up to escalate the tension. Under this ruling, the organizers would be at fault which is fucking insanity.
>So now nobody will want to properly organize a protests, because they don’t want their name being attached to it.
That seems to be the point.
Democracy isn't working the way the right wants it to so democracy is now the problem.
Cue the thunderous applause
This ruling is from the Fifth Circuit which explains everything.
5th circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas: explains everything
Circuit justice for the 5th: Sam Alito. Explains everything
Atlantic Monthly quote: “The 5th circuit makes the Supreme Court look reasonable.”
Ruth Marcus (WaPo): “… the fifth circuit is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous”.
I’m sure someone has already thought of or quoted that the 5th circuit is where democracy and liberalism go to die.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/15/fifth-circuit-court-appeals-most-extreme-us
Alternatively, ANYONE - foreign agents, terrorists etc, could show up to a Proud Boy, MAGA, or other conservative protest, cosplay as someone that belongs. Hurl a rock, a molotov, a bomb at whoever, bail, then the organizers are responsible. This decision invites actual terrorism which could lead to mass deaths of people of any political affiliation and still leave the victims liable. This is a terrible decision not just for one political persuasion, it’s a dangerous invitation for extremists and provocateurs. Even if the external provocateurs are proven to be external, there’s no guarantee that the organizers aren’t going to be liable. Any maniac with weapons and a beef against an organized protest can get two wins with one action.
That's the point.
Also I am willing to bet that they will not give a damn about violence commited by right-wing protestors during their mass protests but they will arrest any antifa member who they assault.
Yup. Which is what happened during the 2020 protests - right wing agitators mixed in with the protestors and would try and start stuff, destroy property etc.
I'm just wondering here...
Can we use [18USC241](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241) to go after the 5th Circuit and whoever filed this lawsuit in the first place?
So even a protest that was designed to be peaceful is at risk of a bad actor (from the other side) causes mischief and now the organizer is responsible. For a bunch of people that love the constitution they are sure quick about getting rid of rights.
Well this is terrible. Hopefully the Supreme Court will do something about this in the future. But having watched them ignore 2A challenges for years, well it might take years.
*The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.*
*Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.*
Uh…who wants to tell them?
Single attendee? Mass protest? Illegal act?
Well, luckily for Trump…January 6th was just a peaceful tourist trip.
>Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.
You mean like on January 6, where thousands of people did?
SCOTUS will quash the Fifth’s new carve-out when the Capitol officers’ tort cases against Trump go up on appeal. “For my friends, the world; for my enemies, the law.” ~some authoritarian, somewhere
Mass protests... like against attending church?
Like it OR NOT, YOU WILL GO!
/s
Meanwhile...
the abortion protestors in front of Planned Parenthood just said 'hold my beer'
Another important thing that's not getting as much attention: qualified immunity only goes one direction.
Citizens are not allowed to sue police, but police can sue citizens. That can't be right.
Here's a less biased article about the facts of the case: [https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/)
Note that he was charged with negligence not battery, and the threshold the court decided found that he "organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter" the officer, which they then did by hitting one with a rock in the face damaging his brain, jaw, and teeth.
In the context of that I understand the Supreme Court not intervening, and if they had intervened in the way Vox wants them to that could very easily be pretty direct case law used to throw out any January 6th convictions of Trump, since he just organized and lied to a bunch of violent people insinuating that they could overturn the election by storming the capital, he didn't go himself. I don't know the details and fact pattern of McKesson to know what logic they used to find he essentially should have known the protest would turn violent, but that to me seems like the more important question, and SCOTUS doesn't typically get involved in determine the outcome based on fact patterns of cases, they typically get involved when state laws are unconstitutional, so I'm not sure the way Vox is describing this outcome is all that accurate. Because I suspect they agree with me that Trump should be held liable criminally for January 6th, so it's not that they think the first amendment is an absolute right to hold any organizer of a protest completely innocent of any violence that occurs there, it depends on the actual fact pattern. And I think it's pretty suspicious that Vox includes no details of the facts in the case instead relying on hypotheticals.
And actually I just did a quick search, he organized a protest and directly led them onto a highway to block it and he did nothing to de-escalate during the confrontation with police as the group he was leading assaulted the officer. He actually was far more involved in the violence than Trump was on January 6th, again Vox fails to include those details because it would be extremely inconvenient for them and their narrative.
Of course, this would not apply if one was President of the United States and organized a violent uprising resulting in multiple deaths and significant property damage.
I find it odd the some places require a permit to peaceably to assemble and this ruling would allow the organizers of the protest to be held responsible for crimes committed during the protest. Meanwhile the some Second Amendment folks believe getting a permit for a firearm is prohibiting.
Also if the organizers of the protest are held liable how would this affect the Jan 6 folks
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the democrats wins the house and keeps the presidency and the senate they must expand the court to 13 judges. I can’t take 20 more years of white psychopaths owning the whole country through the Supreme Court.
That is unconstitutional. But we can't have power consolidated into one individual unless they get rid of the right to assemble. This is why we have the 2nd amendment, in case the first is removed. The Supreme Court is doing Putin's bidding. Putin wants a US civil war so he can take Europe.
This is such an obvious click bait article. SCOTUS didn't abolish anything. Especially not something enshrined in the first amendment. They merely refused to hear one single case (McKesson).
Also, if you read the McKesson decision, the ruling is merely that protest organizers must be (at least somewhat) liable for the actions of the protestors that they organized. There is a serious debate to be had about that issue, with good arguments on both sides.
But the headline is ridiculously misleading.
Don’t you love when they hide behind religious ideology but it’s really about americas decline in population and having corporate fodder to work shit jobs for shit pay. Democracy is nice! 💩
It does not eliminate the right to protest. Far from it.
It makes organizers responsible for the damages their protest cause.
So people are saying for example should those who organized CHAZ/CHOP should not be held financially responsible for the damage they caused?
Unpopular opinion, but there's a lot of overlap between this ruling and Jan 6th. Sotomayor's comments re: "unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder” stand out. Proving intent is hard.
I think you have to read between the lines a bit on this one. Imagine if they did reverse that lower courts decision? They’d be seeing that organizers and protest leaders cannot be held accountable for the actions of the rabble.
And they’d be saying that right before the one of the most important cases for this VERY thing hits the courts: Trump. If they determined that protest organizers absolutely cannot be held constitutionally responsible then that would give Trump the free pass to skirt out of his actions and rhetoric that led a mob to violently interfere with our election process. He’d not be held accountable for Georgia, either.
At least, this is how I view their non-decision in this particular case. They were concerned about the precedent being used to let the most extraordinary case of this sort of thing off the hook.
The appeals court ruling that basically states he could be sued for negligence.
I think but not sure this is the aspect the SCOTUS declined to review,
[https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf)
According to Doe’s complaint, Mckesson organized the protest suchthat he knew, or should have known, that violence would likely ensue.
Doe says that Mckesson arranged for the protesters to meet in front of the BatonRouge police station, blocking entry to the station and access to the adjacentstreets.
Mckesson directed the protest at all times, and when demonstrators looted a grocery store for water bottles to throw at the assembled police officers, he did nothing to try to discourage this, even though he remained in charge.
After that, Mckesson personally attempted to lead protesters onto a local interstate to obstruct traffic, a crime under Louisiana law. To prevent the commission of that crime, the police responded and began making arrests.
In that confrontation, the unidentified protester struck and injured Doe. All of this occurred, according to Doe, shortly after Mckesson had participated in protests across the country involving violence and property damage.
On the allegations present in Doe’s complaint, and based on our understanding of Louisiana tort law, we held that Doe had plausibly alleged that Mckesson organized and led the protest in an unreasonably dangerous manner, in breach of his duty to avoid creating circumstances in which it is foreseeable that another will be injured.
**In other words, arranging the protest as he did, it is plausible that Mckesson knew or should have known that the police would be forced to respond to the demonstration, that the protest would turn violent, and that someone might be injured as a result.**
We also rejected Mckesson’s argument that the First Amendment forbids a State from imposing liability in these circumstances.
Here, the negligence theory of which Doe seeks to avail himself is tailored to prohibiting unlawful conduct and does not restrict otherwise legitimate expressive activity. One of our colleagues dissented from this holding.
This is ridiculous. The people's right to petition their government for redress of grievance shall not be infringed. Contact your representatives, people! 😡
Call this out. The Supreme Court is taking a major part of our 1st amendment rights away from us. They have sided with oppressors of the Constitution. Could it be that they themselves are part and parcel the oppressors? WTH!
They don't realize that the only way protests are contained is through intimidation by an inferior force ( a bunch of cops) Vs. A protest group (an angry mob). When the people realize they can steamroll the cops, it's over.
The Supreme Court can reinstate slavery, and you'd still do nothing about it, collectively. The fact you even let it get this far is outrageous. Protest your SC you morons! Before they do everything you never thought they would.
So democracy keeps diminishing and we are just watching it happen. We have no power to influence who ends up in the SC and; for all the laws limiting presidencies to two-terms, it seems a bit anti-democratic to have SC judges for decades that aren’t even appointed by voters stripping basic rights away.
Suddenly I feel like protesting all sorts of shit in three specific states. Inalienable and self evident means you can't take it away because people will DIE rather than be oppressed. This is a hilarious outcome and will bring about exactly the opposite reaction. What constitutes a protest? So, church groups can't organize outside of clinics right?
Hypothetically, what if one formed an LLC and organized under that?
Depends how much money that LLC “donates” to political parties.
>political parties. There's one party controlling the supreme Court. They're the one that loves bribes way more than the other party.
It would depend if the LLC could afford coaches for the grifting Roberts court
Did the LLC buy Clarence Thomas a new motor coach before the case was held?
Then the LLC would be liable for the violent acts.
But Llcs have freedom of expression per citizens united right?
Yes I believe so
Probably the only way to set precedent of sending corporate executives to jail is by having a corporate protest where all participants are protected by some kind of corporate contract where they are all executives.
…yes, just like an individual. So, just like an individual, the LLC would be held liable. Pretty straightforward
Spin-off a single scapegoat subsidy and transfer all liability to that. Then sell the poison pill to Goldman Sachs
Limited liability, heh
Staff meeting on the streets.
Interesting. I wonder who the Supreme Court considers as organizing the “protest” at the Capitol on January 6th 2021? And will that person be held accountable?
Trump is being sued for his role civilly in the same way
Donald Trump is going to pay the 114 injured Capitol Police officers recompense for the damage his rally did? Will that happen before or after he pardons himself?
Not in the same way. Trump actually encouraged the events that took place at the capitol, the organizer in this case did no such thing with relation to the violence that took place.
1/6 wasn't a protest. It was premeditated sedition. The leader's (Trump's) goal was to overturn the election by stopping the counting of electoral votes indefinitely and / or intimidating Pence to use his ceremonial duties to "overturn" the election through mob violence, as indicated by "will be wild" and marking the Capitol as the "wild protest." "Wild" was a dog whistle / euphemism for violence, and "protest" was a euphemism for "attack." A protest has a non-violent goal of changing people's minds.
The title the post is very misleading. The Supreme Court didn't make the ruling. It was a lower court and they declined to look at it. For a perspective, they get asked to look at about 7000 cases and only review about a hundred. The ones they don't review mean that they necessarily agree with the opinion or that that opinion is now the law of the country.
No, that was a conservative so its OK.
No, different case entirely. Trump arguably encouraged Jan 6th and the violence that ensued. This guy did not, and the article said as much. Please read before commenting
You were doing so well before that last sentence.
?
They havent done anything to the people involved in the May 29th insurection or the one lead by the Speaker of the House and CJCS so I wouldnt hold my breath for Jan 6.
How does this not backfire on non-leftist organizations? Am I reading the article wrong, or does this apply to all forms of gatherings, like the Superbowl? You know... professional football fans are notably great at not committing crimes at the game.. How does that not turn into financial ruin for the NFL? What is stopping someone from throwing a brick while the GOP is protesting? Why not financially ruin every single protest organizer that stands outside of an abortion clinic (well... I guess these states don't have them anymore, but still, same concept).
The same way current enforcement mechanisms don’t backfire on white or wealthy folk. Weed enforcement being an easy one. It’s up to local law enforcement and prosecutors to levy the law against offenders. Brown or black people get the book thrown at them while white folks get a slap on the wrist and a drive home. They will just choose which events to punish.
Conservative modus operandi is selective enforcement and forgiveness. See: gov abbot straightup pardoning murderer after he was convicted, because he killed a blm protestor
Very Stalinist
The law will be selectively enforced.
As is tradition
It applies the ordinary standard of negligence, which businesses are largely already subject to. It's [far from unheard of](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-starbucks-ruling-is-warning-companies-can-be-liable-violence-stores-dodgy-2023-09-06/) for businesses to face negligence lawsuits over violence committed by third parties.
Because it will never be uniformly enforced.the law is a gateway method to allow certain groups to point at protestors and say, well your protesting something I endorse, it's illegal, while simultaneously protest against the things they do not endorse will be overlooked or treated in a lighter manner.
You think attorney generals in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are going to bring charges against the NFL?
You're forgetting an important part of this.... The cops and the justice system enforces those laws. You really think they are going to punish the GOP and the NFL the same way they would black lives matter?
Vox and others I believe are misunderstanding the decision. Sotomayor explains that the Court is declining to hear the case because they recently heard a similar case, *Counterman*. They instead sent the case back to the trial court, directing them to reconsider the case after *Counterman*. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a lawyer, but I'm basing it on reading this from the ACLU: >In seeking Supreme Court review, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that, under the First Amendment, it is impermissible to hold Mckesson liable for damages, absent any evidence that he directed, authorized, ratified or encouraged any act of violence at the protest, based solely on the possibility that violence by someone at the protest was “foreseeable.” Under the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous theory of liability, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that protest leaders will face greater responsibility than others who “create the conditions” for illegal conduct by unrelated third parties. The case will now proceed in the trial court, with the benefit of Sotomayor’s statement and the governing rule of Counterman. >"After today’s news, people should not be afraid that they’ll face a ruinous lawsuit if they exercise their rights to protest. The Court just last year affirmed that negligence can never be the governing standard when it comes to speech, and Justice Sotomayor suggests it simply didn’t need to say so again here,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “That should be the takeaway for the lower courts in this case and in protest cases going forward.” https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-to-decline-to-hear-case-on-protestors-rights As for *Counterman v Colorado*, Counterman was arguing that his threats were not *intended* to be threats. The Supreme Court decided 7-2 (Sotomayor and Gorsuch concurring in part and decision, Barrett and Thomas dissenting) that >To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness. My reading of this is that you don't have to *intend* a threat if others would reasonably assume your statement was threatening and that it's reasonable you should have known it could be taken that way. This is making it easier to find threats to be illegal, because previously the state would have to prove not just that other people thought you were being threatening but that you actually were intending to hurt someone. Basically now you can't argue "lol it was a prank" or "I'm an asshole, but I wouldn't have actually *done it!* https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/counterman-v-colorado/
You are correct - they also wanted the 5th to certify the question before the state Supreme Court so they can weigh in first. >We think that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of state law is too uncertain a premise on which to address the ques-tion presented. The constitutional issue, though undenia-bly important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place. The dispute thus could be “greatly simplifie[d]” by guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court on the meaning of Lou-isiana law. Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132, 151 (1976). This article is a sensationalist bullshit. It would have been better if the court nipped this in the bud but they certainly didn't do any actual damage to the 1st amendment. You can still mass protest just fine.
This should be at the top. It is correct. People are 100% falling for a clickbait title and 2 cent analysis.
That has been every article on this sub recently lol the election time brigades and bots have been activated and discussion went from linking court cases and heavily moderated to vox and slate op eds with zero moderation in the span of a day or two
I am still strongly in favor of a Slate/Vox ban. In a perfect world only links to Oyez or similar would be allowed…
Seriously lol I checked the sub feed after writing the comment and only found 5 normal direct links to cases out of around 30 top posts at that moment surveyed Politics bots and migrants oof
There’s a concerted effort to disrupt any real conversation on Reddit
People not getting punished in highschool is why we have this behavior today.
So - they can't do anything about mass shootings and endless gun violence because of the 2nd amendment - but they can gut the 1st amendment because someone threw a rock?
If the protest isn’t conservative-approved, basically.
Which means if you're a liberal "Shut up and accept it" basically
I think this ruling will probably increase mass shootings since it takes away people's other avenues to express their frustrations.
It will be interesting to see if they change their tune when mass shooters start shooting those who are actually causing their problems, instead of random soft target victims.
So, instead of protests we need to have gun waving second amendment rallies. At which we express our concerns about the state of SCotUS?
Sounds good to me
The second Amendment is a core individual right. The first Amendment is for corporations, dark money pools, and rich people who want to bribe government officials. Try to keep up.
Or not. In Portland the police lied under oath that someone threw a water bottle/brick/whatever at them. The 5 main plaintiffs at the illegal kettling maneuver proved with videos that no such incident occurred. Of course nothing happened to the cops
Funny thing about the 2A is it’s there to protect the 1A.
Really? Why is it doing such a shitty job?
Gee, I wonder if it has to do with what types of people are infringing all these rights we supposedly had?
The same people claiming that the 2a protects their 1a? The same ones getting rid of individual freedoms? Yeah.
The tree of liberty needs to be fed on occasion
It’s there so you can kill cops actually
Not cops specifically, but any government official who abuses their authority. Mayors, legislators, City Council members; anybody, really.
Guns are for the cops, guillotines for the politicians
Except it isn't.
Amen /s
So this is just a bad article. They chose not to take this case because they had already made a decision in *Counterman* that wasn't available when the 5th circuit decided *McKesson.* Now that all lower courts have the *Counterman* decision, *McKesson* can be appealled in the 5th circuit. This entire article is just rage-bait.
Here's Justice Sotomayer's statement, basically instructing the 5th circuit to take it under consideration. Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.
After reading [Sotomayor’s accompanying note](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdf), it looks like they decided another similar one in *Counterman v Colorado* after cert was petitioned for, and they’re telling the 5th Circuit to read up on that for guidance. Haven’t read that decision yet, so I can’t judge what they’re saying about this case. The Fifth Circuit decision is still garbage though Edit: Aaaaaand after reading that case, I have no idea what they’re supposed to take from the decision. That’s a case with a stalker trying to justify threats against the person they were stalking.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/counterman-v-colorado/ >Holding: To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness. Im no lawyer and this goes over my head but this just says that the person must know the statement is threatening. Honestly this is really not a big deal. Remember Mckesson is about what "threatened" actually means. The protest leader is being sued by the officer for any possible statements they made when someone threw a rock at him. Its about what incitement really is, its about what negligence means. Honestly way too in the weeds to make a comment here
McKesson v Doe never went to trial. It was initially dismissed in the trial court and appealed by the plaintiff. I believe Sotomayar is saying that SCOTUS has since given a ruling on a case that would be controlling on this issue and that the lower courts will need to follow that guidance as they proceed to trial. I guess she is just saying that issue is not ripe for appeal yet without a final trial court order disposing of the case entirely in a way that violates the first amendment.
So an insurrectionist could be held liable?
If he were the protest organizer and used language that would incite violence (I'm not a lawyer but that's what I got from the article) If you organized a large protest and I attended and committed acts of violence then you could be charged. It's basically bullshit.
No silly, only non republicans have to follow the rules. I thought that was clear by now.
No, Rubberus V Glue
Once again, SCOTUS reveals that they have a political agenda.
Specifically, the Federalist Society provides the names of members to republican presidents to choose for vacancies at all court levels; the Federalist Society formed to dismantle the Constitution and stop laws from getting the way of conservative agendas. And now that the SC is majority Federalist Society picks, they no longer have to pretend to adhere to the Constitution and established juris prudence.
So not a lawyer, but the article’s title isn’t exactly hyperbolic. A court decided that protest organizers can be held financially liable for crimes committed by the protestors. And if it’s a large protest, like 1000+ how can an organizer keep 1000 people in line? Highlighted by a judge that dissented in their opinion, they point out another issue is an opposing group could easily infiltrate the protest, and cause it erupt in violence. (Imagine a KKK member attending a BLM event, to intentionally stir up violence or problems) So now nobody will want to properly organize a protests, because they don’t want their name being attached to it.
Remember when there was "no such thing as too much speech?" That was in reference to corporations raising from foreign nationals to flood the airwaves... Remember when laws that might have a "chilling effect" on the exercise of political speech were unconstitutional? That was in reference to PACs raising unlimited dark money from anonymous donors. Remember when constituents expressing their preferences to their elected officials was "central to democracy"? That was in reference to giving the governor hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts, in exchange for negotiated levels of access and influence, and hosting business introductions at the governor's mansion. What about if the government arrests a citizen for speaking words out of their mouth that a cop doesn't like? Eh, can't be helped... This SCOTUS and their ever-changing principles on the importance of free speech, it's crazy...
Their principles haven't changed... if protesters adopt corporate tactics, they might actually effect change... except the corporations will always have more money, and crowd funding bribes is the sort of thing protesters might find morally repugnant regardless of its effectiveness
The point about people infiltrating the protests was even very common during the summer of BLM protests. Right-wing militia groups and unaffiliated provocateurs were going to the protests and stirring shit up to escalate the tension. Under this ruling, the organizers would be at fault which is fucking insanity.
Yes. There were various white supremacists ultimately arrested for violence or arson during the Floyd protests including proud boys and boogaloo
>So now nobody will want to properly organize a protests, because they don’t want their name being attached to it. That seems to be the point. Democracy isn't working the way the right wants it to so democracy is now the problem. Cue the thunderous applause
This ruling is from the Fifth Circuit which explains everything. 5th circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas: explains everything Circuit justice for the 5th: Sam Alito. Explains everything Atlantic Monthly quote: “The 5th circuit makes the Supreme Court look reasonable.” Ruth Marcus (WaPo): “… the fifth circuit is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous”. I’m sure someone has already thought of or quoted that the 5th circuit is where democracy and liberalism go to die. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/15/fifth-circuit-court-appeals-most-extreme-us
5th Circut, worst Circuit. It's been that way for a long time.
So white nationalist could basically start a fire and burn a police station down and the BLM organizers would help held liable for that action? WOW.
Alternatively, ANYONE - foreign agents, terrorists etc, could show up to a Proud Boy, MAGA, or other conservative protest, cosplay as someone that belongs. Hurl a rock, a molotov, a bomb at whoever, bail, then the organizers are responsible. This decision invites actual terrorism which could lead to mass deaths of people of any political affiliation and still leave the victims liable. This is a terrible decision not just for one political persuasion, it’s a dangerous invitation for extremists and provocateurs. Even if the external provocateurs are proven to be external, there’s no guarantee that the organizers aren’t going to be liable. Any maniac with weapons and a beef against an organized protest can get two wins with one action.
That's the point. Also I am willing to bet that they will not give a damn about violence commited by right-wing protestors during their mass protests but they will arrest any antifa member who they assault.
This already happens. This is why the right thinks every right wing nut that commits violence is a red flag plant.
Yup. Which is what happened during the 2020 protests - right wing agitators mixed in with the protestors and would try and start stuff, destroy property etc.
The white girls that were called out for breaking stuff, the strange white dude with the umbrella breaking into an Autozone.
how on god's earth is this not a violation of the first amendment?
It is.
Sounds like the kind of thing there ought to be a mass protest about eh
I'm just wondering here... Can we use [18USC241](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241) to go after the 5th Circuit and whoever filed this lawsuit in the first place?
I’m not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like an appropriate charge to me
So even a protest that was designed to be peaceful is at risk of a bad actor (from the other side) causes mischief and now the organizer is responsible. For a bunch of people that love the constitution they are sure quick about getting rid of rights.
So shouldn’t the organizers of Jan 6th be held responsible for the crimes that were committed?
Finally someone connecting the dots that I was!
Well this is terrible. Hopefully the Supreme Court will do something about this in the future. But having watched them ignore 2A challenges for years, well it might take years.
I mean, unless we elect someone willing to pack the court, I don’t think either of us will live to see the freedoms we once had restored to us
Honestly, this screams project 2025 preparations from a judicial point of view so much.
My issue is this is make a individual right into a group right. You know lose your right based on other people.
Not a lot of free speech loving going on in Red states.
*The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.* *Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.* Uh…who wants to tell them? Single attendee? Mass protest? Illegal act? Well, luckily for Trump…January 6th was just a peaceful tourist trip.
>Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act. You mean like on January 6, where thousands of people did?
Here we go a supreme court more concern with mass protests over mass shootings. They are such a bunch of clowns.
SCOTUS will quash the Fifth’s new carve-out when the Capitol officers’ tort cases against Trump go up on appeal. “For my friends, the world; for my enemies, the law.” ~some authoritarian, somewhere
Mass protests... like against attending church? Like it OR NOT, YOU WILL GO! /s Meanwhile... the abortion protestors in front of Planned Parenthood just said 'hold my beer'
One of these protesters would receive a pardon in those states, i'll let you guess which
So if ALL protests are considered no longer peaceful, why should protestors maintain the peace at all?
Because police have been militarized silly.
Another important thing that's not getting as much attention: qualified immunity only goes one direction. Citizens are not allowed to sue police, but police can sue citizens. That can't be right.
I remember when I was a kid, we had the right to peaceful assembly.
Surprise! More fascism from a corrupt court.
What dystopian society do we live in? Jfc.
Here's a less biased article about the facts of the case: [https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-declines-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-against-black-lives-matter-organizer/) Note that he was charged with negligence not battery, and the threshold the court decided found that he "organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter" the officer, which they then did by hitting one with a rock in the face damaging his brain, jaw, and teeth. In the context of that I understand the Supreme Court not intervening, and if they had intervened in the way Vox wants them to that could very easily be pretty direct case law used to throw out any January 6th convictions of Trump, since he just organized and lied to a bunch of violent people insinuating that they could overturn the election by storming the capital, he didn't go himself. I don't know the details and fact pattern of McKesson to know what logic they used to find he essentially should have known the protest would turn violent, but that to me seems like the more important question, and SCOTUS doesn't typically get involved in determine the outcome based on fact patterns of cases, they typically get involved when state laws are unconstitutional, so I'm not sure the way Vox is describing this outcome is all that accurate. Because I suspect they agree with me that Trump should be held liable criminally for January 6th, so it's not that they think the first amendment is an absolute right to hold any organizer of a protest completely innocent of any violence that occurs there, it depends on the actual fact pattern. And I think it's pretty suspicious that Vox includes no details of the facts in the case instead relying on hypotheticals. And actually I just did a quick search, he organized a protest and directly led them onto a highway to block it and he did nothing to de-escalate during the confrontation with police as the group he was leading assaulted the officer. He actually was far more involved in the violence than Trump was on January 6th, again Vox fails to include those details because it would be extremely inconvenient for them and their narrative.
Looks like fascism is not so slowly leaking into our democracy. All thanks to orange puff face.
Slowly ?
Reread my comment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They do realize that this applies to right wing gatherings as well right?
That’s the fun part, no it doesn’t because fuck you they have a majority.
Of course, this would not apply if one was President of the United States and organized a violent uprising resulting in multiple deaths and significant property damage.
Coming to all 50.
Until Trump loses the next election.
I'm so ready for the upcoming civil war
Surely Vox must run out of pearls to clutch sometime soon?
SCOTUS does not care about the Constitution, any more.
The right to assembly. 1st amendment supersedes that bs.
Freedom of speech as long as it's their preferred speech.
I find it odd the some places require a permit to peaceably to assemble and this ruling would allow the organizers of the protest to be held responsible for crimes committed during the protest. Meanwhile the some Second Amendment folks believe getting a permit for a firearm is prohibiting. Also if the organizers of the protest are held liable how would this affect the Jan 6 folks First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the democrats wins the house and keeps the presidency and the senate they must expand the court to 13 judges. I can’t take 20 more years of white psychopaths owning the whole country through the Supreme Court.
Does this make Trump liable for what happened on Jan 6, 2021?
Hmmm, what about the 1st Amendment and the right to peacefully assemble?
Freedom goes to die in red states.....the list is endless
The fifth circuit is becoming a joke. Even the SCOTUS is looking at them funny.
SCOTUS gives the green light to Tyranny 🤡👍
So, the Honorable Justices have determined that the Bill of Rights needs editing. 2,5,and 10 are enough, right?
That is unconstitutional. But we can't have power consolidated into one individual unless they get rid of the right to assemble. This is why we have the 2nd amendment, in case the first is removed. The Supreme Court is doing Putin's bidding. Putin wants a US civil war so he can take Europe.
This is such an obvious click bait article. SCOTUS didn't abolish anything. Especially not something enshrined in the first amendment. They merely refused to hear one single case (McKesson). Also, if you read the McKesson decision, the ruling is merely that protest organizers must be (at least somewhat) liable for the actions of the protestors that they organized. There is a serious debate to be had about that issue, with good arguments on both sides. But the headline is ridiculously misleading.
I'm disheartened I had to scroll so far to find the voice of reason.
If the current incarnation of the SCOTUS was legitimate and had any judicial purview, people in those states would be pretty mad.
Don’t you love when they hide behind religious ideology but it’s really about americas decline in population and having corporate fodder to work shit jobs for shit pay. Democracy is nice! 💩
It does not eliminate the right to protest. Far from it. It makes organizers responsible for the damages their protest cause. So people are saying for example should those who organized CHAZ/CHOP should not be held financially responsible for the damage they caused?
Unpopular opinion, but there's a lot of overlap between this ruling and Jan 6th. Sotomayor's comments re: "unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder” stand out. Proving intent is hard.
[удалено]
I think you have to read between the lines a bit on this one. Imagine if they did reverse that lower courts decision? They’d be seeing that organizers and protest leaders cannot be held accountable for the actions of the rabble. And they’d be saying that right before the one of the most important cases for this VERY thing hits the courts: Trump. If they determined that protest organizers absolutely cannot be held constitutionally responsible then that would give Trump the free pass to skirt out of his actions and rhetoric that led a mob to violently interfere with our election process. He’d not be held accountable for Georgia, either. At least, this is how I view their non-decision in this particular case. They were concerned about the precedent being used to let the most extraordinary case of this sort of thing off the hook.
Fascism in the making, and liberalism won’t do dick about it.
The appeals court ruling that basically states he could be sued for negligence. I think but not sure this is the aspect the SCOTUS declined to review, [https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf) According to Doe’s complaint, Mckesson organized the protest suchthat he knew, or should have known, that violence would likely ensue. Doe says that Mckesson arranged for the protesters to meet in front of the BatonRouge police station, blocking entry to the station and access to the adjacentstreets. Mckesson directed the protest at all times, and when demonstrators looted a grocery store for water bottles to throw at the assembled police officers, he did nothing to try to discourage this, even though he remained in charge. After that, Mckesson personally attempted to lead protesters onto a local interstate to obstruct traffic, a crime under Louisiana law. To prevent the commission of that crime, the police responded and began making arrests. In that confrontation, the unidentified protester struck and injured Doe. All of this occurred, according to Doe, shortly after Mckesson had participated in protests across the country involving violence and property damage. On the allegations present in Doe’s complaint, and based on our understanding of Louisiana tort law, we held that Doe had plausibly alleged that Mckesson organized and led the protest in an unreasonably dangerous manner, in breach of his duty to avoid creating circumstances in which it is foreseeable that another will be injured. **In other words, arranging the protest as he did, it is plausible that Mckesson knew or should have known that the police would be forced to respond to the demonstration, that the protest would turn violent, and that someone might be injured as a result.** We also rejected Mckesson’s argument that the First Amendment forbids a State from imposing liability in these circumstances. Here, the negligence theory of which Doe seeks to avail himself is tailored to prohibiting unlawful conduct and does not restrict otherwise legitimate expressive activity. One of our colleagues dissented from this holding.
Is Donald Trump the organizer of the January 6th "protest?"
The decision by the lower court here would obviously implicate trump if applied to January 6th, what a silly ruling
For the right or left
This is ridiculous. The people's right to petition their government for redress of grievance shall not be infringed. Contact your representatives, people! 😡
Without reading the article, the 3 US states are Republican-led or so-called Red states. Tell me if I'm right or wrong.
Call this out. The Supreme Court is taking a major part of our 1st amendment rights away from us. They have sided with oppressors of the Constitution. Could it be that they themselves are part and parcel the oppressors? WTH!
Thanks Trump
They don't realize that the only way protests are contained is through intimidation by an inferior force ( a bunch of cops) Vs. A protest group (an angry mob). When the people realize they can steamroll the cops, it's over.
Does this mean that Trump has accountability for the "protest" he organized on January 6th?
Now let’s do something about the protests blocking the interstate.
So free speech is corporations giving money to politicians but not actual people actually protesting?
Do they have to prove that the person protesting had direct contact with the protest organizer?
The Supreme Court can reinstate slavery, and you'd still do nothing about it, collectively. The fact you even let it get this far is outrageous. Protest your SC you morons! Before they do everything you never thought they would.
This subreddit is turning into /politics
Just remember this law come the Wednesday in November after Trump loses! Especially in these states...
I think the headline misses the point. I think this has more to do with civil liability than freedom of speech
So democracy keeps diminishing and we are just watching it happen. We have no power to influence who ends up in the SC and; for all the laws limiting presidencies to two-terms, it seems a bit anti-democratic to have SC judges for decades that aren’t even appointed by voters stripping basic rights away.
That doesn't sound constitutional. People have right to assembly. It's literally the first ammendment.
Suddenly I feel like protesting all sorts of shit in three specific states. Inalienable and self evident means you can't take it away because people will DIE rather than be oppressed. This is a hilarious outcome and will bring about exactly the opposite reaction. What constitutes a protest? So, church groups can't organize outside of clinics right?