• 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
        7 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
        57 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
      7 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.

  • @EndOfLine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    738 months ago

    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?

    • @danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      218 months ago

      Strong than even written. They actually make shit up that was never in there and attribute it to the 2nd ammendment.

    • @nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      20
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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?

      • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        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.

  • @MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    25
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      28
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s more likely that they’re not touching it because they want to suppress African-American protests. [I am also not a lawyer]

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      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.

  • @Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    188 months ago

    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.

  • frustrated_phagocytosis
    link
    fedilink
    138 months ago

    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?

    • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      108 months ago

      The best option would be to increase its size — it was designed to have as many justices as there are appeals circuits, but the number of appeals circuits was rasied without increasing the size of the Supreme Court. Doing that will require electing a Democratic President and at least 50 willing Democratic senators (eg: a total of 55+ Democrats in the Senate)

      • Jaysyn
        link
        fedilink
        98 months ago

        Thomas could be indicted & arrested on corruption charges today, on facts that are publicly known about him.

        • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          48 months ago

          However meritorious this might be, the Republicans would still have a 5-seat majority on the Supreme Court.

  • metaStatic
    link
    fedilink
    98 months ago

    Peaceful protest was the compromise, and it seems like they’ve forgotten why, maybe you should remind them.

  • Granbo's Holy Hotrod
    link
    fedilink
    78 months ago

    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.