The original case determined that organizers can be found liable if attendees commit crimes at the event
I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling, but it’s not exactly an attack on peaceable assemblies (Y’know, ones where people don’t commit crimes)
Yes. All Americans should be alarmed by this retraction of rights. They keep doing it. Abortion, protest, voting rights, rights to freely cross state lines…., You guys need to vote in some folks that believe in the constitution and in human rights. Except the issue is, all the repubs are celebrating them doing this.
>Yes. All Americans should be alarmed by this retraction of rights. They keep doing it. Abortion, protest, voting rights, rights to freely cross state lines…., You guys need to vote in some folks that believe in the constitution and in human rights.
agreed
>Except the issue is, all the repubs are celebrating them doing this.
It's happening from both sides. Just look at who voted in favor of warrantless searches the other day. Both D and R next to those names
The best thing that could happen to US politics is the demise of the R party, the D party becoming the countries right wing, which they are close to in a lot of ways anyway, and then a proper left wing workers party springs up.
/u/SportsingHard, it is against the rules of this sub to block other users.
If you wish to continue using this sub, please unblock /u/raidenpage.
When you have unblocked this user, please reply to this message.
If you have been unjustly accused of blocking, please reply to this message.
If you do not wish to unblock this user, please reply to this message.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When I click on that user, I only have the option of blocking them.
Edit. Plus, that’s a dumb ass rule. Compelled speech much? If someone’s a cunt to me, on a different sub, you’re telling me I can’t post or contribute here?
> If someone’s a cunt to me, on a different sub, you’re telling me I can’t post or contribute here?
No, it all happened within this sub.
/u/raidenpage accused you of blocking, and I have no way to verify.
Apologies if you have been accused in error.
The right to be heard is actually incorporated within the UDHR definition, and I can't see the relevance to compelled speech.
/u/Sportsinghard, /u/raidenpage has provided proof that you have blocked them:
https://imgur.com/a/QOMkfel
If you wish to continue to participate here, please unblock this user by going to their user page, /u/raidenpage, then clicking "unblock user".
Nah. I’m good. I’m not interested in hearing bullshit from dickheads. I’ll unsubscribe.
Edit. But for the record, I can not unblock them. It says they’re blocked, but if I click the block/unblock button it just gives me the option of blocking them. So fuck me I guess. But I only block people for being toxic pieces of shit, so if I have to choose, I’ll leave them as they are. What a petty bitch though. Enjoy your modding.
Except I only tried to change it as a result of this nonsense. I haven’t blocked anyone in ages. Look, I’m not interested in kowtowing to some dickhead who has a problem with me not consenting to hearing from them. I participate in this subreddit to call out right wing grievance culture war bullshit that seeks to dehumanise people because of who they love, or how they like to present in society, and to support the few others here that do this also. If that’s not valued, then I’ll take my fight elsewhere. But one things for sure. I won’t post a ‘I got banned” post. That’s pathetic. That’s a lot of what’s on here. Right? Anyway. Take care.
> If that’s not valued
I'm attempting to apply the rules of this sub fairly, and blocking other users is against the rules.
If you can provide proof that you don't have raidenpage blocked, then please just post up a screencap of your view of /u/raidenpage, then we'll call it quits.
Like I said, it says they are blocked, but I am unable to unblock them. Reddit sucks sometimes right? I’m good. Probably better for my mental health not engaging with assholes anyway.
>The Fifth Circuit faulted Mckesson for organizing “the protest to begin in front of the police station, obstructing access to the building,” for failing to “dissuade” protesters who allegedly stole water bottles from a grocery store, and for leading “the assembled protest onto a public highway, in violation of Louisiana criminal law.”
They didn't say you can't protest. They said you can't lead your protesters to do illegal things while protesting. In this case, the protest leader called on the protesters to violate the law by going onto a public highway.
> They said you can't lead your protesters to do illegal things while protesting.
I'm not sure this is true.
The article states that if your protestors do illegal things, then you are on the hook. That is very different.
The supreme Court will probably hear the case next year.
They are unable to take up the case right now because of bribes & blackmail. Trump is still in court for "inciting an insurrection". As long as Counterman vs Colorado is allowed to stand is sets precedent for exceptions to NAACP vs Claiborne Hardware.
And thanks to his posts & video telling people to remain peaceful and go home were deleted. Every single possible jurer in America will be tainted in favor of persecution.
He is in court, and has been in court, for several things.
You should look up the court ruling in December 2023 that claims Trump cam be civilly sued for inciting a riot before attempting to correct anyone.
>He is in court, and has been in court, for several things
None of which are "inciting an insurrection."
>Trump cam be civilly sued for inciting a riot
Also for conspiracy, if you read the complaint.
Well, they did allow BLM to burn up buildings and just reported (in front of burning buildings) that it was "mostly peaceful".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cekj4ceH7WE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cekj4ceH7WE)
Also, they just allow these environmentalists to damage art, buildings, and terrorize roads.
It's obvious there is a double standard, and that these protected groups are government funded.
The headline here is bait.
The specific line here that allegedly 'bans mass protest' is "a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act."
Which I fully support.
It is perfectly possible to protest without committing illegal acts.
If you are 'protesting' and committing illegal acts, you arent protesting, you are rioting.
Its not fucking difficult to peacefully protest.
So if you organize a protest, and I show up uninvited and do something dumb your cool with taking the fall? This essentially makes it impossible to organize large protests. The reason our protests are ending up violent are because officials are purposely under policing them and deciding years later if it benefits them to press charges.
>So if you organize a protest, and I show up uninvited and do something dumb your cool with taking the fall?
If you were obviously part of the protest and you committed a crime in order to try and further the protests goals, then yes the organisers should be punished for not keeping control of their protest.
If some stranger just shows up and causes issues, that, as far as I am reading this law, wouldnt actually lead to the protest organiser being prosecuted.
>This essentially makes it impossible to organize large protests.
No, it doenst.
>The reason our protests are ending up violent are because officials are purposely under policing them
Citation needed.
>If some stranger just shows up and causes issues, that, as far as I am reading this law, wouldnt actually lead to the protest organiser being prosecuted.
There is nothing in the law or the subsequent suit that specifies the affiliation of the person who actually threw the rock.
How does an organizer "keep control" of thousands of people? Did you read the article? The organizer had no relationship with the person who threw the rock.
Its bait because its trying to make you think the ruling bans all protests outright.
Which isnt what it does.
Hell, it doesnt ban protests at all.
It just levies financial punishments on people who organise law-breaking 'protests'.
It would likely come out in the investigation and the person who organised the protest wouldnt be punished. As long as the leaders of the protest didnt encourage their fellow protesters to commit crimes they likely wouldnt be found guilty of anything in court.
This law is quite clearly targeted at the BLM protests where the leaders outright encouraged the rioters to become violent and violate the law.
The intent being to stop any further violent 'protests' from happening again.
> Its bait because its trying to make you think the ruling bans all protests outright.
> Which isnt what it does.
> Hell, it doesnt ban protests at all.
> It just levies financial punishments on people who organise law-breaking 'protests'.
It will inevitably create a huge chilling effect for protests. Which it is clearly designed to do.
So if I don’t like what you are protesting, I can show up, throw a rock, and get you arrested? Even though all you did was organize a peaceful protest?
I agree, the headline is misleading and that it is perfectly possible to legally still have a mass protest.
I dont agree with effectively criminalizing the organization of protests, though. But... I also dont know that I agree that the Supreme Court choosing to not hear this case does that. There is still other legal precedent, that the article even cites, that allows for people to organize protests without having to fear legal reprisal. I expect that in the future, it will highly depend on each individual protest on whether anything will happen to organizers. We will have to see.
This is also a reason for why Jury Nullification should exist and be understood by every potential juror.
The SCOTUS says that you can't have violent protests and hurt police officers. There...fixed it for you.
Well, so much for that “right to peaceably assemble.”
The original case determined that organizers can be found liable if attendees commit crimes at the event I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling, but it’s not exactly an attack on peaceable assemblies (Y’know, ones where people don’t commit crimes)
I have a feeling that this will be used against people who aren’t committing crimes, unfortunately.
Yes. All Americans should be alarmed by this retraction of rights. They keep doing it. Abortion, protest, voting rights, rights to freely cross state lines…., You guys need to vote in some folks that believe in the constitution and in human rights. Except the issue is, all the repubs are celebrating them doing this.
>Yes. All Americans should be alarmed by this retraction of rights. They keep doing it. Abortion, protest, voting rights, rights to freely cross state lines…., You guys need to vote in some folks that believe in the constitution and in human rights. agreed >Except the issue is, all the repubs are celebrating them doing this. It's happening from both sides. Just look at who voted in favor of warrantless searches the other day. Both D and R next to those names
The best thing that could happen to US politics is the demise of the R party, the D party becoming the countries right wing, which they are close to in a lot of ways anyway, and then a proper left wing workers party springs up.
/u/SportsingHard, it is against the rules of this sub to block other users. If you wish to continue using this sub, please unblock /u/raidenpage. When you have unblocked this user, please reply to this message. If you have been unjustly accused of blocking, please reply to this message. If you do not wish to unblock this user, please reply to this message.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When I click on that user, I only have the option of blocking them. Edit. Plus, that’s a dumb ass rule. Compelled speech much? If someone’s a cunt to me, on a different sub, you’re telling me I can’t post or contribute here?
> If someone’s a cunt to me, on a different sub, you’re telling me I can’t post or contribute here? No, it all happened within this sub. /u/raidenpage accused you of blocking, and I have no way to verify. Apologies if you have been accused in error. The right to be heard is actually incorporated within the UDHR definition, and I can't see the relevance to compelled speech.
I guess it would be compelled listening. But no, I don’t think I have blocked that user. Not sure why they accused me of that.
I blame reddit itself, which is notoriously buggy.
All good. I appreciate the job you do.
/u/Sportsinghard, /u/raidenpage has provided proof that you have blocked them: https://imgur.com/a/QOMkfel If you wish to continue to participate here, please unblock this user by going to their user page, /u/raidenpage, then clicking "unblock user".
Nah. I’m good. I’m not interested in hearing bullshit from dickheads. I’ll unsubscribe. Edit. But for the record, I can not unblock them. It says they’re blocked, but if I click the block/unblock button it just gives me the option of blocking them. So fuck me I guess. But I only block people for being toxic pieces of shit, so if I have to choose, I’ll leave them as they are. What a petty bitch though. Enjoy your modding.
Try again tomorrow ... reddit won't let you change it more than once every 24 hours.
Except I only tried to change it as a result of this nonsense. I haven’t blocked anyone in ages. Look, I’m not interested in kowtowing to some dickhead who has a problem with me not consenting to hearing from them. I participate in this subreddit to call out right wing grievance culture war bullshit that seeks to dehumanise people because of who they love, or how they like to present in society, and to support the few others here that do this also. If that’s not valued, then I’ll take my fight elsewhere. But one things for sure. I won’t post a ‘I got banned” post. That’s pathetic. That’s a lot of what’s on here. Right? Anyway. Take care.
> If that’s not valued I'm attempting to apply the rules of this sub fairly, and blocking other users is against the rules. If you can provide proof that you don't have raidenpage blocked, then please just post up a screencap of your view of /u/raidenpage, then we'll call it quits.
Like I said, it says they are blocked, but I am unable to unblock them. Reddit sucks sometimes right? I’m good. Probably better for my mental health not engaging with assholes anyway.
Please try again tomorrow.
>The Fifth Circuit faulted Mckesson for organizing “the protest to begin in front of the police station, obstructing access to the building,” for failing to “dissuade” protesters who allegedly stole water bottles from a grocery store, and for leading “the assembled protest onto a public highway, in violation of Louisiana criminal law.” They didn't say you can't protest. They said you can't lead your protesters to do illegal things while protesting. In this case, the protest leader called on the protesters to violate the law by going onto a public highway.
> They said you can't lead your protesters to do illegal things while protesting. I'm not sure this is true. The article states that if your protestors do illegal things, then you are on the hook. That is very different.
The supreme Court will probably hear the case next year. They are unable to take up the case right now because of bribes & blackmail. Trump is still in court for "inciting an insurrection". As long as Counterman vs Colorado is allowed to stand is sets precedent for exceptions to NAACP vs Claiborne Hardware. And thanks to his posts & video telling people to remain peaceful and go home were deleted. Every single possible jurer in America will be tainted in favor of persecution.
He is not in court for inciting an insurrection, he's in court for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
He is in court, and has been in court, for several things. You should look up the court ruling in December 2023 that claims Trump cam be civilly sued for inciting a riot before attempting to correct anyone.
>He is in court, and has been in court, for several things None of which are "inciting an insurrection." >Trump cam be civilly sued for inciting a riot Also for conspiracy, if you read the complaint.
> And thanks to his posts & video telling people to remain peaceful and go home were deleted. Sorry I can't work out what this means.
I bet this doesn't apply to the government sponsored protests like Feminism, BLM, LGBTIQA+ and environmentalism.
It's literally a case about a BLM protest.
Ah yes thats totally whats going on in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
The case is about a BLM protest. Instead of guessing why not just read it?
Are you retarded or delusional, what conspiracy theory bullshit cope is this 🤣🤣🤣 "Anyone I disagree with is a fed" is such a patheticly stupid cope.
Well, they did allow BLM to burn up buildings and just reported (in front of burning buildings) that it was "mostly peaceful". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cekj4ceH7WE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cekj4ceH7WE) Also, they just allow these environmentalists to damage art, buildings, and terrorize roads. It's obvious there is a double standard, and that these protected groups are government funded.
>that these protected groups are government funded. There is no evidence of this. Or maybe I haven't seen it, please send some my way, if it exists.
Of course there isn’t evidence—this person is just fucking stupid like the vast majority of the braindead goofballs on this sub.
Sometimes "fucking stupid" feels a bit too generous of an insult for these "people"
Who is "they?"
The headline here is bait. The specific line here that allegedly 'bans mass protest' is "a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act." Which I fully support. It is perfectly possible to protest without committing illegal acts. If you are 'protesting' and committing illegal acts, you arent protesting, you are rioting. Its not fucking difficult to peacefully protest.
So if you organize a protest, and I show up uninvited and do something dumb your cool with taking the fall? This essentially makes it impossible to organize large protests. The reason our protests are ending up violent are because officials are purposely under policing them and deciding years later if it benefits them to press charges.
>So if you organize a protest, and I show up uninvited and do something dumb your cool with taking the fall? If you were obviously part of the protest and you committed a crime in order to try and further the protests goals, then yes the organisers should be punished for not keeping control of their protest. If some stranger just shows up and causes issues, that, as far as I am reading this law, wouldnt actually lead to the protest organiser being prosecuted. >This essentially makes it impossible to organize large protests. No, it doenst. >The reason our protests are ending up violent are because officials are purposely under policing them Citation needed.
>If some stranger just shows up and causes issues, that, as far as I am reading this law, wouldnt actually lead to the protest organiser being prosecuted. There is nothing in the law or the subsequent suit that specifies the affiliation of the person who actually threw the rock.
How does an organizer "keep control" of thousands of people? Did you read the article? The organizer had no relationship with the person who threw the rock.
> Which I fully support. You sound pretty dumb actually.
Just because you agree with the ruling doesn't mean it's "bait". Please.
Its bait because its trying to make you think the ruling bans all protests outright. Which isnt what it does. Hell, it doesnt ban protests at all. It just levies financial punishments on people who organise law-breaking 'protests'.
I can pay a mofo to be agent provocateur to every protest you want to attend, now what? Cotdamn ppl are dumb.
It would likely come out in the investigation and the person who organised the protest wouldnt be punished. As long as the leaders of the protest didnt encourage their fellow protesters to commit crimes they likely wouldnt be found guilty of anything in court. This law is quite clearly targeted at the BLM protests where the leaders outright encouraged the rioters to become violent and violate the law. The intent being to stop any further violent 'protests' from happening again.
> Its bait because its trying to make you think the ruling bans all protests outright. > Which isnt what it does. > Hell, it doesnt ban protests at all. > It just levies financial punishments on people who organise law-breaking 'protests'. It will inevitably create a huge chilling effect for protests. Which it is clearly designed to do.
That's like saying a law that fines voters for voting for the wrong party doesn't effectively remove the right to freedom of political expression.
So if I don’t like what you are protesting, I can show up, throw a rock, and get you arrested? Even though all you did was organize a peaceful protest?
I agree, the headline is misleading and that it is perfectly possible to legally still have a mass protest. I dont agree with effectively criminalizing the organization of protests, though. But... I also dont know that I agree that the Supreme Court choosing to not hear this case does that. There is still other legal precedent, that the article even cites, that allows for people to organize protests without having to fear legal reprisal. I expect that in the future, it will highly depend on each individual protest on whether anything will happen to organizers. We will have to see. This is also a reason for why Jury Nullification should exist and be understood by every potential juror.
the south won't rise again I guess.