4 ms·

SCOTUS Declines to Review First Amendment Mass Protest Rights Case

31 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent. Who can protest, if the risk is that someone/anyone at the protest does something illegal & you get the blame? Shame on this fucked up court system.
- skhunted 3y ago
  The Constitution badly needs a rewrite.
  - metadat 3y ago
    We're a ways off from this happening, a much larger percentage of the general U.S.A. population needs to become discontent before re-evaluation will commence.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That's pretty much exactly what Benjiman Franklin said at the time .. "It'll make do for now, but it'll wear thin with age and get ripped by despots" (paraphrased).
- raincom 3y ago
  If another circuit court sets an opposite precedent in a similar case, SCOTUS will take the case.
  - infogulch 3y ago
    Oh! I was upset about them not taking the case at first, but a situation like you described may provide a better scenario to hear the arguments from both sides.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's not in one of the states mentioned. Also, to be clear, they haven't said he -is- liable, just that the case can proceed. It still has to be evaluated on merit. (at least at the lower court level.) Underlying all of this is the root issue that all to often protests, on both sides of the spectrum, contain violence and property destruction. All too often without any consequences. Does this create a chilling effect on protests? Absolutely. Will it mean more accountability for violence and destruction? Possibly. Would this encourage organisers to emphasise to followers the importance of -peaceful- protest? Maybe. (Will it incentivize false-flag activities? Probably.) I lean on the side of this being "bad" overall, but its a very nuanced issue.
- fxd123 3y ago
  > Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent It's not precedent "Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim"
janalsncm 3y ago
I think this continues to set the precedent that Freedom of Speech is reserved for those who can afford it. For most people, political speech is a liability for your job, which means speaking your mind puts your healthcare, and that of your spouse and kids in jeopardy. It’s not an accident that the people most outraged about “cancel culture” are far more wealthy than the average Joe. Most people aren’t walking around with the illusion that they can speak out about important things and keep their healthcare. Free Speech is not a law, it is a concept. The idea is to be able to say what you want, including and especially about powerful groups and people. It doesn’t matter if that group is the Chinese government or Chuck E Cheese. While it is true that Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences, we still get to decide what those consequences should be.
- infogulch 3y ago
  That's just it. We've woken up and found that our free speech rights are de-facto already gone, pinched off from multiple angles at once. One solution is to make political opinion a protected class alongside sex, race, and religious belief.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    That is a nice idea but I think in practice it is hard to enforce. Employers discriminate against hiring disabled people and it’s difficult to prove it has happened. The original sin was linking all basic needs to employment in the first place. Why should whether a child has access to healthcare depend on how upstanding and wealthy his dad is? We don’t say that about grade school.
    - wakawaka28 3y ago
      >Employers discriminate against hiring disabled people and it’s difficult to prove it has happened. This is a contentious one. Disabled people often are less able to do many jobs specifically because of their condition. On the other hand, political opinion is almost never relevant to one's ability to actually do a job. >The original sin was linking all basic needs to employment in the first place. Why should whether a child has access to healthcare depend on how upstanding and wealthy his dad is? We don’t say that about grade school. Where are these critical needs supposed to come from, if not from the fruits of someone's labor? Do you think other people owe you something for merely existing? People who get wealthy tend to get that way by providing for other people's needs and desires, and that is why they and their children are able to pay for their own needs. We do live in a society that affords even the poorest people certain benefits for free, like free school. But even in that case, poor people pay a substantial portion of the cost for those "free" benefits through their taxes. Health care is just too expensive to give to everyone for free. It would require taxation roughly equal to the cost of insurance premiums to be extracted from everyone, and then the government would still act like it's doing you a favor.
causal 3y ago
Wouldn't ruling that BLM leaders are responsible for actions of individual protestors open the door for officers hurt by protestors on January 6th to sue Trump?
- fxd123 3y ago
  Officers hurt during Jan 6th have already sued Trump. These lawsuits have been ongoing since 2021
philwelch 3y ago
Here’s a less ”activist” source reporting the same story: 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-interve...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
otterley 3y ago
Lawyer here! (Not your lawyer, blah blah blah.) The issue in this case isn't whether Mr. McKesson is actually liable for the conduct that injured the police officer. It's whether or not the police officer even has a valid claim that Mr. McKesson could be liable if all the facts claimed are true, which is very much in dispute. The actual facts of the case haven't even been established yet. This is a case about what we call a standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss. First-year law school stuff. I don't think it's worth reading too much into this case. Yeah, it's the Fifth Circuit, which is packed with idiot judges hand-picked by the Federalist Society. But as to its importance in the grand scheme of things, the "truthout" website is making a mountain out of molehill IMO. As ideologically extreme publications do. Another commenter pointed at the Scotus blog which I think is a far fairer (if much drier) report.

31 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent. Who can protest, if the risk is that someone/anyone at the protest does something illegal & you get the blame? Shame on this fucked up court system.

skhunted 3y ago
The Constitution badly needs a rewrite.
- metadat 3y ago
  We're a ways off from this happening, a much larger percentage of the general U.S.A. population needs to become discontent before re-evaluation will commence.
- defrost 3y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what Benjiman Franklin said at the time .. "It'll make do for now, but it'll wear thin with age and get ripped by despots" (paraphrased).
raincom 3y ago
If another circuit court sets an opposite precedent in a similar case, SCOTUS will take the case.
- infogulch 3y ago
  Oh! I was upset about them not taking the case at first, but a situation like you described may provide a better scenario to hear the arguments from both sides.
bruce511 3y ago
Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's not in one of the states mentioned. Also, to be clear, they haven't said he -is- liable, just that the case can proceed. It still has to be evaluated on merit. (at least at the lower court level.) Underlying all of this is the root issue that all to often protests, on both sides of the spectrum, contain violence and property destruction. All too often without any consequences. Does this create a chilling effect on protests? Absolutely. Will it mean more accountability for violence and destruction? Possibly. Would this encourage organisers to emphasise to followers the importance of -peaceful- protest? Maybe. (Will it incentivize false-flag activities? Probably.) I lean on the side of this being "bad" overall, but its a very nuanced issue.
fxd123 3y ago
> Jesus what a horrific ungodly precedent It's not precedent "Because the Supreme Court may turn down cases “for many reasons,” Sotomayor stressed, the denial of review in Mckesson’s case “expresses no review about the merits of” his claim"

janalsncm 3y ago

I think this continues to set the precedent that Freedom of Speech is reserved for those who can afford it. For most people, political speech is a liability for your job, which means speaking your mind puts your healthcare, and that of your spouse and kids in jeopardy. It’s not an accident that the people most outraged about “cancel culture” are far more wealthy than the average Joe. Most people aren’t walking around with the illusion that they can speak out about important things and keep their healthcare. Free Speech is not a law, it is a concept. The idea is to be able to say what you want, including and especially about powerful groups and people. It doesn’t matter if that group is the Chinese government or Chuck E Cheese. While it is true that Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences, we still get to decide what those consequences should be.

infogulch 3y ago
That's just it. We've woken up and found that our free speech rights are de-facto already gone, pinched off from multiple angles at once. One solution is to make political opinion a protected class alongside sex, race, and religious belief.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  That is a nice idea but I think in practice it is hard to enforce. Employers discriminate against hiring disabled people and it’s difficult to prove it has happened. The original sin was linking all basic needs to employment in the first place. Why should whether a child has access to healthcare depend on how upstanding and wealthy his dad is? We don’t say that about grade school.
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    >Employers discriminate against hiring disabled people and it’s difficult to prove it has happened. This is a contentious one. Disabled people often are less able to do many jobs specifically because of their condition. On the other hand, political opinion is almost never relevant to one's ability to actually do a job. >The original sin was linking all basic needs to employment in the first place. Why should whether a child has access to healthcare depend on how upstanding and wealthy his dad is? We don’t say that about grade school. Where are these critical needs supposed to come from, if not from the fruits of someone's labor? Do you think other people owe you something for merely existing? People who get wealthy tend to get that way by providing for other people's needs and desires, and that is why they and their children are able to pay for their own needs. We do live in a society that affords even the poorest people certain benefits for free, like free school. But even in that case, poor people pay a substantial portion of the cost for those "free" benefits through their taxes. Health care is just too expensive to give to everyone for free. It would require taxation roughly equal to the cost of insurance premiums to be extracted from everyone, and then the government would still act like it's doing you a favor.

causal 3y ago

Wouldn't ruling that BLM leaders are responsible for actions of individual protestors open the door for officers hurt by protestors on January 6th to sue Trump?

fxd123 3y ago
Officers hurt during Jan 6th have already sued Trump. These lawsuits have been ongoing since 2021

philwelch 3y ago

Here’s a less ”activist” source reporting the same story: 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-interve...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

otterley 3y ago

Lawyer here! (Not your lawyer, blah blah blah.) The issue in this case isn't whether Mr. McKesson is actually liable for the conduct that injured the police officer. It's whether or not the police officer even has a valid claim that Mr. McKesson could be liable if all the facts claimed are true, which is very much in dispute. The actual facts of the case haven't even been established yet. This is a case about what we call a standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss. First-year law school stuff. I don't think it's worth reading too much into this case. Yeah, it's the Fifth Circuit, which is packed with idiot judges hand-picked by the Federalist Society. But as to its importance in the grand scheme of things, the "truthout" website is making a mountain out of molehill IMO. As ideologically extreme publications do. Another commenter pointed at the Scotus blog which I think is a far fairer (if much drier) report.