- cross-posted to:
- usa
- news@hexbear.net
- politics@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- usa
- news@hexbear.net
- politics@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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?
That basically right?
Yep, you got it!
Yeah, so, that’s a nothingburger. Thanks for calling out Vox.
That’s my reading too.
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.
Rage bait
It’s what makes the enshitified internet continue to coerce engagement from it’s viewers
Would you mind explaining what the actual takeaway should be? My media literacy isn’t great
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.
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.”
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.
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?
No, because Jan 6 happened under the jurisdiction of the DC circuit, not the 5th circuit.
Darn it. That is disappointing.
With Trump, everything is.
Removed by mod
Strong than even written. They actually make shit up that was never in there and attribute it to the 2nd ammendment.
Theres nothing illegal about armed demonstrations, why remove the comment? Protesting while carrying arms is explicitly legal under US law. There was no call to violence, no celebration of violence whats going on?
As an alternative my I suggest a general strike? I just think anything with guns should be a last resort.
Problem is, the cops have guns. If you want guns to be the last resort, you need to increase the cost of using guns. The way to do that is to bring both sides of that equation up to parity.
Unequal armament makes armed conflict more attractive to those who are armed. Equal armament makes armed conflict a last resort.
do you have a link to that footage? im curious now.
There goes right to assembly. Freedom of speech up next. SCOTUS is systematically disassembling our Bill of Rights.
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.
It’s more likely that they’re not touching it because they want to suppress African-American protests. [I am also not a lawyer]
why not both.
Clarence Thomas would vote against African American interests? Vanish the thought! /s
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.
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.
Yep.
theres a reason i say the us is not a democracy.
So, when trump loses his reelection bid, and his cult takes to the streets…
What if he wins, and we can’t protest anything he does?
protest anyway. with guns.
If the police show up it will either be too late or to protect their buddies.
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?
Yesterday was the time to riot. Fascism is winning in grassroot red areas.
Never too late to riot. Just more dangerous
Well that’s to bad, I was busy yesterday
Peaceful protest was the compromise, and it seems like they’ve forgotten why, maybe you should remind them.
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.
Mmm, freedumb!
deleted by creator
But guys, once we get ranked choice voting it will fix everything. /s
It would fix a hell of a lot, including things like this. But there’s no conceivable path to getting ranked choice voting.
Eh, no single winner system will change much, and I think Approval Voting does a better job of getting results all the other advanced voting methods agree with while being simpler than RCV and providing more data about losing candidates. Anyway, we’ll have to switch to some kind of proportional method like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting if we want the legislature to have the political diversity of the people. Such a legislature would naturally nominate less extreme judges.
Ranked choice voting alters the value and costs of voting for third party candidates. That enables third parties to run without taking votes from the nearest of the two dominant parties.
Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it’s just they’re confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn’t a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.
Anyway, RCV and approval often agree on the results, even including who should take 2nd, 3rd, and so on, but approval is simpler and won’t hides second preferences.
Practically anything is better than “choose one,” but we’re still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.
