• Buelldozer
    link
    fedilink
    191
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      368 months ago

      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?

    • Xhieron
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29
      edit-2
      8 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.

      • SSTF
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        8 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.

      • Buelldozer
        link
        fedilink
        58 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.”

    • SSTF
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      8 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.