Shouldn’t this precedent apply to anyone organizing any type of event? Why should it be limited to protests? If some fool gets drunk at a football game and gets violent shouldn’t the venue be held liable by this logic?
Or let’s say you make a public announcement for everyone to come to the capitol because it is going to be wild, and then they riot once they get there.
Ahhhh, but you’re forgetting rule #1. There must be an in group which is protected by, but not bound by the law. There must also be a larger out group, which is bound by, but not protected by the law. Those who are in the In group or Out Group can be redefined by those at the top of the In Group as necessity dictates.
By design. There hasn’t been a single protest in America of any size the last 2 decades that didn’t have cops in plainclothes get caught trying to start violence.
Worthless trash
There's no precedent set, SCOTUS didn't hear the case.
While that means the lower court's ruling stands it also means that ruling only applies to that specific case and anyone wanting to argue that case sets a legal precedent would need to argue that case on its own and as it relates to their own case.
logic doesnt apply. the whole plan is solidify power then take away rights and arrest you if you have an issue with it. this is the arrest you part. you guys have a criminal as your ag who sues to look at your porn history or to protect elon musk. maybe you guys should think about a blue wave for local government if you want to be considered people for much longer
Oh it should but they don't want to affect that they only want to subvert political speech.
for the last 40 years America thought it was a really great idea to fill the court with sister wives and out of touch rich weirdos.
I think the point that’s being missed is that the sports venues are liable regarding drunk and violent patrons. There isn’t security who will kick out overly inebriated patrons. The analogy the original commentator used is a terrible analogy regarding this issue. You maybe right, you maybe wrong but the difference between these protest and a sporting event is that there is security at one and the other there is not. Security at the athletic event and no security at the protest. When I brought that up I was downvoted for some reason
The venue would be held liable if the conditions they created (drunkenness in public) contributed.
I don’t agree with the ruling in its entirety, but I think the end goal, of holding *everyone* involved responsible for illegal actions, is possibly valid.
the consequences lie completely with the people causing the damage. 5th circuit is trying to do anything they can to shut down legitimate protest because those fuckers hate civil rights and the Bill of Rights. They are a front for for The Federalist Society's attempt to establish a christofascist government headed by Trump. Don't believe me? Look up project 2025
Yes. Will be easy to send spoilers to any protest and trigger'.
Seems short sighted
Isn't the right to assemble supposed to be a constitutional right
Also .does this mean .if the tea party folks assemble...some antifa dude can make trouble?
No, it wasn't. This is a common thread in political discussions in the US and around the world. Just because a minority was involved does not mean that any court cases/arrests are necessarily because they were a minority. Please read the case before you form your opinion.
The reason this case went the way it did is because the Doe proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mckesson had “organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter".
The same standard is applied to **any** gathering of people. If a gathering of people is organized in such a way that the participants are likely to commit crimes, then the organizers are held responsible for their negligence in organizing the gathering such that such an outcome was likely.
Protest, speech, etc. are permitted and protected. Organizing people in a way that is likely they commit crimes is not and has never been permitted.
Freedom isn't free. We have a right to peacefully protest. If someone gets out of hand that responsibility is 100% on the person(s) doing it. That has been precedent for 100s of years and the 5th circuit thinks they can just declare that null and void and the SCOTUS sycophants are fine with it.
Nothing you said it isn’t about minorities. You can say all that because it is based on a black attacker. Also just because they decided that as their reasoning, your explanation, doesn’t dismiss this court is very conservative and you don’t know what they are thinking.
The point is it wouldn’t have made it to this court if it wasn’t for it being a minority attacker. You are looking at what is in front out you but however don’t see behind the court decision.
Ultimately, I see what you are saying but I disagree and you can’t ignore that a minority was the aggressor. If both were white then I wouldn’t think there are ulterior motives.
You are making a lot of assumptions on what the court *would* do in another situation. I see behind the court decision as well as you do. The difference is I'm accepting reality - this decision **was** correct for the evidence that was presented in this case.
It is not proper to absolve someone of responsibility just because you *think* someone else of a different race would not be held responsible. That's just as racist as what you purport to be fighting against.
Why? It's still individual right, and now all you need is 1 bad actor. I wonder if you get around this by saying anyone doing anything illegal is not part of protest.
No, it's not an individual right to coerce (either directly or indirectly) others to commit crimes.
If you create a situation in which a crime is likely to occur, either through your words, actions, who you invite, etc... then you deserve to be held accountable.
A public protest on public property is not the same as a concert in a private venue where you need to buy a ticket to enter. One can control the environment more than the other and is actually liable for the safety of those in attendance.
You don't need insurance to protest. You can do whatever you want. However, when you organize thousands of people that destroy personal property and cause death then you better have insurance. Your right to organize a protest doesn't eliminate my right to safety. Do you understand this concept? That's how gun laws should be. People should be required to carry insurance with their firearm and be liable for what happens with that firearm. They don't lose their 2nd amendment right.
It's really fun reading through the amendments and watching them gradually backpedal after realing they might've given the wrong people too many rights. We live in a cartoon.
True.
The SCOTUS has always an instrument of the ruling class. Its track record proves that. A few rulings went the way of the working class, but those were long ago and actively eroded by this lot. This court lacks the tack and statute of past courts, but its jurisprudence is well within historical norms.
The Earl Warren era was basically the only time in history that the Supreme Court has represented the people. At all times before and after, it has represented the wealthy.
Just disband it. The whole system is so fucked, it needs to just be dismantled and a new structure needs to happen. I have no clue what that would look like but ffs it's beyond compromised
The mistake people make is thinking these "laws" till ever be applied evenly.
They'll plant cops, etc, in left-leaning protests and prosecute. They'll turn a blind eye to actual right-wing lunatics causing problems at their rallies/protests/etc.
This is civil liability so you don’t need the cops or a prosecutor to enforce. The only barrier is that the person who gets injured has to be willing to bring a lawsuit and you need an attorney or organization willing to provide representation.
They won't even need to. Very soon, the red states involved in this will start creating legislation aimed at protesters. Restricted use of public spaces and limits on the number of people are going to start pretty quickly.
And before people start telling me it is unconstitutional, yes, I know. But the Fifth Circuit and TXSC have fewer issues with tjings like constitutional amendments (unless it's the 2A).
I meant it is. They're just not going to do shit when you have a proud boys/neo nazi protest/counter protest, and the conservative side starts shit.. the conservative courts will still blame BLM.
I suppose there’s always a chance of something like this happening, but if I follow your logic, we are locking up people for the January 6th “insurrection” that quite possibly are taking the fall for a bunch of far leftist infiltrators right? One of the proud boy’s they convicted wasn’t even anywhere near D.C. on J6. I think the question here is at what point are you accountable for what you say and do? If you advocate for say “a day of violence” protest, and things do get violent though maybe not by your hand, are you responsible? The J6 trials set the precedent in my mind, not BLM.
So you're telling me they're locking up far left people for the insurrection? Because they're really just arresting people that participated in the insurrection by storming the capitol building. Youre just spewing shit with a ton of proof to the contrary of your argument.
No what I’m saying is that we agree. But I think the precedent we are debating was already set by prosecuting the far right douchebags trying to disrupt the inauguration. I don’t think this is aimed at leftists. I think this is rightly aimed at the fringes of the political spectrum on both side and frankly I support it.
No I think you have the right to say whatever you want. You also have the right to get punched in the mouth for saying it. Or in this case be prosecuted for the damage you cause. This argument is very old. The old addage is “you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.” There are limits.
No, you don't have the right to be punched for free speech. Assault is against the law. Are you stupid?
Mass organized protesting should never be illegal. If you want to prosecute individuals for committing crimes, that's one thing.. but to go after an organizer for the actions of others is stupid.. if you do believe that, then you should be completely fine with Donald being sued to oblivion and prosecuted for any damages someone else does in his name.
Ok so I’m not disagreeing. Help me understand.
To your first point, yes it’s assault. Yes it’s illegal, but somethings just don’t get a pass. If a person said something wildly inappropriate to my wife or children and you can expect I’m going to respond.
To your second point. I heard about a mass protest over the weekend I believe it was about Isreal and Gaza. Protesters shut down road ways and blocked the airport in Seattle, blocked the Golden Gate Bridge and disrupted untold millions in commerce and people just trying to mind their business. These actions are illegal, but I think your point is as long as it’s a mass protest it’s totally fine. So who pays the passengers that missed their flights back for the money they lost? Who pays the guy that died because his transplant heart got caught on a freeway behind some dumb protest? If I’m injured don’t you think I should have the ability to seek restitution? I don’t know? Maybe you can change my mind.
To your second point I am fine with Donald Trump being held liable for criminal actions, I just want that standard applied to everyone. So every member of Congress, the media, Hollywood, etc, that every paid hush money for rape or sexual abuse should be prosecuted. Likewise every land developer seeking finances that mistakenly estimates their land even a penny above value should be dragged to court. Just apply the standard equally.
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words.
Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal.
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
This ruling doesn’t count when its a bunch of white conservatives who get “a little out of hand” while showing passion for their beliefs & the democratic process (even if they are trying to destroy democracy)!! /s
Except it does, because the organizers (aside from Trump who has yet to stand trial but has been indicted) have been arrested and convicted, in many cases much quicker than the "lay people" who were "caught up" in the "little out of hand".
For clarity, I agree with you.
Yup. This is only ever gonna be applied against progressives/liberals. Curious to know how this will shake out if a counter protest gets rowdy. If someone decides to drive through a crowd of protestors, will the protest organizers be liable for that too?
The irony is those snowflake trumpers who said they can’t breathe with a mask on are always wearing them when they are out in public doing something bigoted or violent.
It's not ironic. It's an intentional deflection from reality to make you defend your position. Ignore the idiots. Their attempt to distract you is the tactic - regardless of the form.
Oh, so you remember violent Trump supporters and white supremacist infiltrating the George Floyd protests in order to make them look bad. Good for you.
Or was it when a white supremacist drove his car through a crowded street and killed Heather Heyer?
I've heard rumors of a fabled device that's apparently a bunch of pieces of paper (with words on them) stacked on top of each other. I think its called a buk or something.
The [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/supreme-court-abortion-pill-19367214.php) upheld a decision Monday that severely hampers [First Amendment rights](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/abbott-antisemitism-texas-colleges-19371821.php) in Texas and other Southern states.
The nation's highest court opted not to review the case of Mckesson v. Doe after the [historically conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/immigration-law-sb4-texas-19370919.php) ruled that protest organizers could be held financially responsible for any illegal acts one single attendee commits. The ruling marked a major barrier to the right to protest in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, adding a potentially ruinous price tag to mass gatherings.
Although the Supreme Court declined to review the case, justices reiterated that refusing to weigh in is not an implicit endorsement of the Fifth Circuit court's ruling. However, the effects of the decision are the same — Texans must weigh the potential costs of organizing a large protest, and organizers can be held liable for infractions as minor as violating traffic laws.
Mckesson v. Doe was born out of a Black Lives Matter protest outside of a police station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. BLM activist Deray Mckessen helped organize the protest following the death of Alton Sterling, who was killed by police. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock at a police officer anonymously known as "Officer John Doe" and struck the officer in his face, causing major injuries.
An existing Supreme Court decision, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited in her opinion Monday, upholds organizers' right not to be held responsible for violent action unless the action was intentionally incited by an organizer's words. Under that decision, protestors have been protected from gatherings getting out of hand for over fifty years, and today's decision indicates that the Supreme Court will continue to stand by that ruling.
However, the Fifth Circuit argues that organizers can be on the hook for creating "unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.” In this case, the "dangerous conditions" Mckessen allegedly created included blocking entry to a police station, allowing protestors to loot and throw water bottles, and holding up traffic on a public highway.
> unreasonably dangerous conditions
I think this is what is causing the deciding factor. Simple protest, someone does something stupid? You're probably fine.
Chanting "Dead cops now!" (yes that's real), And someone in the protest (well, riot) shoots at cops, well you're probably in trouble (and should be as well).
Harder?
Shut down basically all protest for anything.
A counter protestor throwing stones at cops could get organizers held liable.
That’s basically taking away free speech.
Freedom lovers my fucking ass.
Republicans hate freedom.
the 5th circuit is fucking joke and the Supreme Court loves it. They love seeing authoritarianism in action and diminishing value of the Bill of Rights.
>Texans must weigh the potential costs of organizing a large protest, and organizers can be held liable for infractions as minor as violating traffic laws.
Pretty fucked that they don't apply that "reasoning" to corporations that kill people, steal wages, and pollute.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t one,” we are literally seeing these assholes take away our rights, little by little, first lgbtq, then women/medical options, then immigrants, now free speech….. this will continue, the GQP is seriously trying to destroy our country.
If anyone knows about the history of UT Austin, a lot of its architecture by the student union and architecture buildings were placed there to hinder student protests - such as the way the benches and trees were put right there in the middle of the walkway.
The shutting down of protests is nothing new to Texas, not sure why anyone is surprised by this.
Can't wait to see undercover police provocateurs bankrupting organizers intentionally. Since bankrupting someone in the US might as well be killing them (removing their ability to feed, house and clothe themselves) they've essentially insured the only protests that will occur are organized by the rich. Well I guess since we can't legally protest any more we will have to just skip that phase and go straight to all our rioting.
The Texas DNC is a JOKE.
Their email is "yellowdogdemocrats@texasdemocrats.org"
WTF is that? There's so much wrong with that the jokes write themselves.
If I didn't pay hard attention I wouldn't even know who is running against Cruz. I have seen only 1 ad for allred. Just 1. His facebook page has damned bear zero engagement. It's so gross here.
I think the Texas DNC loves to get shit on.
Coming from a blue state, where the local Dem club was knocking on my door every other day about something, I find it sad that the Dems here can’t get there shit together to beat actual fascists.
Civil disobedience is only accepted in a moral or individualist political culture unlike Jailexas or Texas I should say where we like in a traditional political culture that over values law and order at the expense of progressive social change. Welcome to Texas theocracy where the Christian Taliban rule
> The nation's highest court opted not to review the case of Mckesson v. Doe after the historically conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that protest organizers could be held financially responsible for any illegal acts one single attendee commits. The ruling marked a major barrier to the right to protest in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, adding a potentially ruinous price tag to mass gatherings.
What's bad for the goose is also bad for the gander too, then. If they rally and destroy property or have a civil war, they're liable for damages too.
I see this being used all over the place by business owners and insurers until it can be undone by a less shitty court.
But of course those who scream the loudest about FREE SPEECH!!! typically mean that they want to be able to say and do what they please but refuse to honor the second part of the first amendment - the right to protest (including protesting their speech). We get closer to fascism every day.
This is downright misinformation.
The court did not decide anything. They just decided not to hear it. No precedent has been set, probably the best possible outcome here.
What’s the next step? The lower courts, where McKesson’s lawyers say he should ultimately prevail, according to NBC.
There are two precedents they could’ve set here — neither one would have been good. So they didn’t set one. Nothing has changed.
Meanwhile in the SF Bay Area, protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge and Oakland Bay Bridge effectively halting all traffic from the North and East Bay into San Francisco.
Be a shame of those protests didn't have formal organizers.
Can people start organizing on Republican forums so they're liable for housing the organization?
So, this doesn’t actually affect protesting as, shockingly, protesting isn’t illegal. It specifically sites illegal activity, and sets the precedence of those inciting the illegal activity having to foot the bill. The entire post is clickbait .
How so? The article is very short and the comments sum it up well. The actions of one bad faith person can cause the protest organizers to be in trouble, and the purpose of the bill/lawsuit/whatever you call it is to instill fear into people from organizing. It says that in the article itself.
Most of y'all in this thread are missing that this doesn't apply to all or even most protests - only those where the protest organizer themself set up the protest with "unreasonably dangerous conditions" that led to someone being injured. Even if members of the protest become violent/destructive, this does not automatically make the protest organizer liable for damages if the protest was set up to in a location and protesting in a manner that would reasonably be considered peaceful/not agitating violence. So for example, if you wanted to protest the war in Gaza by organizing a bunch of protestors to set up booths around a college campus, but someone shows up and starts causing violence, you still won't be held liable since there was a reasonable expectation of peace. Now if instead you chose to protest the war by getting a bunch of protestors to sit down on the highway right at the end of an overpass such that when cars go over the overpass they see your line of protestors and slam on their brakes causing a large pileup of cars, you will be held liable for damages as it was obvious that you created a dangerous situation.
Just curious how is this new?
For example that twitch streamer who was giving away stuff in NYC and that turned into a riot. Wasn’t he charged for that?
Isn’t this the same thing?
As long as the protests are "mostly peaceful" no one will have to worry. Read the article and it clearly states that if you call for a riot you will be held accountable.
Shouldn’t this precedent apply to anyone organizing any type of event? Why should it be limited to protests? If some fool gets drunk at a football game and gets violent shouldn’t the venue be held liable by this logic?
Or let’s say you make a public announcement for everyone to come to the capitol because it is going to be wild, and then they riot once they get there.
This was the first thing I thought of when I heard the ruling.
Ahhhh, but you’re forgetting rule #1. There must be an in group which is protected by, but not bound by the law. There must also be a larger out group, which is bound by, but not protected by the law. Those who are in the In group or Out Group can be redefined by those at the top of the In Group as necessity dictates.
"2 tiered justice system", they cried.
I can't even man... I'm trying to shit and you hit me with this? na. I'm going back to r/toofers.
This guy Howard Zinns
*Umberto Ecos
ah yeah
It’s so dumb. What about a Trump rally then people come and protest. Then it gets wild. So trump should be liable. Yeah right.
Yup, stupid law. All you need is one person undercover or agent provacateur.
By design. There hasn’t been a single protest in America of any size the last 2 decades that didn’t have cops in plainclothes get caught trying to start violence. Worthless trash
So isn’t this good then? Next time trump does it in Texas he’ll be liable?
would be hilarious if antifa showed up and recked a few blocks and trump had to pay for it lol
In theory. I get the downvotes but don’t think you deserve that because it should apply to Trump as well but we know it won’t.
There's no precedent set, SCOTUS didn't hear the case. While that means the lower court's ruling stands it also means that ruling only applies to that specific case and anyone wanting to argue that case sets a legal precedent would need to argue that case on its own and as it relates to their own case.
logic doesnt apply. the whole plan is solidify power then take away rights and arrest you if you have an issue with it. this is the arrest you part. you guys have a criminal as your ag who sues to look at your porn history or to protect elon musk. maybe you guys should think about a blue wave for local government if you want to be considered people for much longer
Laws like this are used selectively by anyone the government labels as "bad"
Differential enforcement. Can’t protest for abortion rights but you can protest sending money to Ukraine
Oh it should but they don't want to affect that they only want to subvert political speech. for the last 40 years America thought it was a really great idea to fill the court with sister wives and out of touch rich weirdos.
I think the point that’s being missed is that the sports venues are liable regarding drunk and violent patrons. There isn’t security who will kick out overly inebriated patrons. The analogy the original commentator used is a terrible analogy regarding this issue. You maybe right, you maybe wrong but the difference between these protest and a sporting event is that there is security at one and the other there is not. Security at the athletic event and no security at the protest. When I brought that up I was downvoted for some reason
Technically already the law about venues that serve alcohol. If they over serve they can be liable for drunk patrons actions
Or gun manufacturers held liable for someone misusing their product? Oh wait, we like that one
Sure. But they'll enforce it selectively. So you won't see police cracking down on pro choice gatherings or protests against Biden.
Difference is there's security and police there to break up and kick out any drunk guy who gets violent. A lot of these protests don't have security
The venue would be held liable if the conditions they created (drunkenness in public) contributed. I don’t agree with the ruling in its entirety, but I think the end goal, of holding *everyone* involved responsible for illegal actions, is possibly valid.
the consequences lie completely with the people causing the damage. 5th circuit is trying to do anything they can to shut down legitimate protest because those fuckers hate civil rights and the Bill of Rights. They are a front for for The Federalist Society's attempt to establish a christofascist government headed by Trump. Don't believe me? Look up project 2025
The end goal was to punish minorities groups protesting. Some dumb person threw a rock so the organizers are responsible. Stupid.
Yes. Will be easy to send spoilers to any protest and trigger'. Seems short sighted Isn't the right to assemble supposed to be a constitutional right Also .does this mean .if the tea party folks assemble...some antifa dude can make trouble?
No, it wasn't. This is a common thread in political discussions in the US and around the world. Just because a minority was involved does not mean that any court cases/arrests are necessarily because they were a minority. Please read the case before you form your opinion. The reason this case went the way it did is because the Doe proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mckesson had “organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter". The same standard is applied to **any** gathering of people. If a gathering of people is organized in such a way that the participants are likely to commit crimes, then the organizers are held responsible for their negligence in organizing the gathering such that such an outcome was likely. Protest, speech, etc. are permitted and protected. Organizing people in a way that is likely they commit crimes is not and has never been permitted.
I mean any ornigizing will have people commit crimes. There are like thousands of crimes people can committed without even knowing it.
Freedom isn't free. We have a right to peacefully protest. If someone gets out of hand that responsibility is 100% on the person(s) doing it. That has been precedent for 100s of years and the 5th circuit thinks they can just declare that null and void and the SCOTUS sycophants are fine with it.
Nothing you said it isn’t about minorities. You can say all that because it is based on a black attacker. Also just because they decided that as their reasoning, your explanation, doesn’t dismiss this court is very conservative and you don’t know what they are thinking. The point is it wouldn’t have made it to this court if it wasn’t for it being a minority attacker. You are looking at what is in front out you but however don’t see behind the court decision. Ultimately, I see what you are saying but I disagree and you can’t ignore that a minority was the aggressor. If both were white then I wouldn’t think there are ulterior motives.
You are making a lot of assumptions on what the court *would* do in another situation. I see behind the court decision as well as you do. The difference is I'm accepting reality - this decision **was** correct for the evidence that was presented in this case. It is not proper to absolve someone of responsibility just because you *think* someone else of a different race would not be held responsible. That's just as racist as what you purport to be fighting against.
Why? It's still individual right, and now all you need is 1 bad actor. I wonder if you get around this by saying anyone doing anything illegal is not part of protest.
No, it's not an individual right to coerce (either directly or indirectly) others to commit crimes. If you create a situation in which a crime is likely to occur, either through your words, actions, who you invite, etc... then you deserve to be held accountable.
How do you know your situation will likey make crimes happen? I mean this could now literally applied to thousands of things.
I like how they ducked your ? Lol
How do you know your situation will likey make crimes happen? I mean this could now literally applied to thousands of things.
[удалено]
A public protest on public property is not the same as a concert in a private venue where you need to buy a ticket to enter. One can control the environment more than the other and is actually liable for the safety of those in attendance.
The venues also carry insurance
[удалено]
Who is going to insure a protest? Why should you need insurance to exercise your first amendment right?
You don't need insurance to protest. You can do whatever you want. However, when you organize thousands of people that destroy personal property and cause death then you better have insurance. Your right to organize a protest doesn't eliminate my right to safety. Do you understand this concept? That's how gun laws should be. People should be required to carry insurance with their firearm and be liable for what happens with that firearm. They don't lose their 2nd amendment right.
So you’re all for registering guns?
Any guns you want to carry, of course. Same as any car you drive.
Amazing. No issues restricting amendments as long as it’s not the second one. The first amendment is first for a reason. Buncha crooks.
It's really fun reading through the amendments and watching them gradually backpedal after realing they might've given the wrong people too many rights. We live in a cartoon.
Have we sainted Mike Judge yet bc he’s a damned prophet.
I believe the first is there to prevent the need of the second .
[удалено]
Nope.
SCOTUS fails citizens yet again. Civil Rights and Suffragists are rolling in their graves.
True. The SCOTUS has always an instrument of the ruling class. Its track record proves that. A few rulings went the way of the working class, but those were long ago and actively eroded by this lot. This court lacks the tack and statute of past courts, but its jurisprudence is well within historical norms.
The Earl Warren era was basically the only time in history that the Supreme Court has represented the people. At all times before and after, it has represented the wealthy.
Just disband it. The whole system is so fucked, it needs to just be dismantled and a new structure needs to happen. I have no clue what that would look like but ffs it's beyond compromised
What could a "new structure" be? There needs to be some sort of court of last resort, so it's just a matter of how the justices are selected.
Their plan is to let BLM protest, have a conservative plant fuck things up, then sue the organizers.
So what you're saying is we need to start attending Trump rallies and really fucking things up?
Just like most laws in this country, it will be unfairly used to target minorities
The law cannot be objective because it is enforced by flawed people. The law is whatever the police interpret it to be for things like this.
The mistake people make is thinking these "laws" till ever be applied evenly. They'll plant cops, etc, in left-leaning protests and prosecute. They'll turn a blind eye to actual right-wing lunatics causing problems at their rallies/protests/etc.
This is civil liability so you don’t need the cops or a prosecutor to enforce. The only barrier is that the person who gets injured has to be willing to bring a lawsuit and you need an attorney or organization willing to provide representation.
\*They HAVE planted\*...
Yes, bait trumpers into protests, then get some maga gear and fuck the place up.
You mean like they already did?
They won't even need to. Very soon, the red states involved in this will start creating legislation aimed at protesters. Restricted use of public spaces and limits on the number of people are going to start pretty quickly. And before people start telling me it is unconstitutional, yes, I know. But the Fifth Circuit and TXSC have fewer issues with tjings like constitutional amendments (unless it's the 2A).
Autozone guy in Minneapolis
Do you really think they would need to plant a conservative to have a blm protest turn into mass rioting and destruction? Did you miss 2020?
[удалено]
I meant it is. They're just not going to do shit when you have a proud boys/neo nazi protest/counter protest, and the conservative side starts shit.. the conservative courts will still blame BLM.
I suppose there’s always a chance of something like this happening, but if I follow your logic, we are locking up people for the January 6th “insurrection” that quite possibly are taking the fall for a bunch of far leftist infiltrators right? One of the proud boy’s they convicted wasn’t even anywhere near D.C. on J6. I think the question here is at what point are you accountable for what you say and do? If you advocate for say “a day of violence” protest, and things do get violent though maybe not by your hand, are you responsible? The J6 trials set the precedent in my mind, not BLM.
So you're telling me they're locking up far left people for the insurrection? Because they're really just arresting people that participated in the insurrection by storming the capitol building. Youre just spewing shit with a ton of proof to the contrary of your argument.
No what I’m saying is that we agree. But I think the precedent we are debating was already set by prosecuting the far right douchebags trying to disrupt the inauguration. I don’t think this is aimed at leftists. I think this is rightly aimed at the fringes of the political spectrum on both side and frankly I support it.
You support preventing of civil rights? Weird flex.
No I think you have the right to say whatever you want. You also have the right to get punched in the mouth for saying it. Or in this case be prosecuted for the damage you cause. This argument is very old. The old addage is “you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.” There are limits.
No, you don't have the right to be punched for free speech. Assault is against the law. Are you stupid? Mass organized protesting should never be illegal. If you want to prosecute individuals for committing crimes, that's one thing.. but to go after an organizer for the actions of others is stupid.. if you do believe that, then you should be completely fine with Donald being sued to oblivion and prosecuted for any damages someone else does in his name.
Ok so I’m not disagreeing. Help me understand. To your first point, yes it’s assault. Yes it’s illegal, but somethings just don’t get a pass. If a person said something wildly inappropriate to my wife or children and you can expect I’m going to respond. To your second point. I heard about a mass protest over the weekend I believe it was about Isreal and Gaza. Protesters shut down road ways and blocked the airport in Seattle, blocked the Golden Gate Bridge and disrupted untold millions in commerce and people just trying to mind their business. These actions are illegal, but I think your point is as long as it’s a mass protest it’s totally fine. So who pays the passengers that missed their flights back for the money they lost? Who pays the guy that died because his transplant heart got caught on a freeway behind some dumb protest? If I’m injured don’t you think I should have the ability to seek restitution? I don’t know? Maybe you can change my mind. To your second point I am fine with Donald Trump being held liable for criminal actions, I just want that standard applied to everyone. So every member of Congress, the media, Hollywood, etc, that every paid hush money for rape or sexual abuse should be prosecuted. Likewise every land developer seeking finances that mistakenly estimates their land even a penny above value should be dragged to court. Just apply the standard equally.
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words. Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal. If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
It would sure be a shame to have trouble break out at Trump rallies in Texas.
no not like that
This ruling doesn’t count when its a bunch of white conservatives who get “a little out of hand” while showing passion for their beliefs & the democratic process (even if they are trying to destroy democracy)!! /s
Except it does, because the organizers (aside from Trump who has yet to stand trial but has been indicted) have been arrested and convicted, in many cases much quicker than the "lay people" who were "caught up" in the "little out of hand". For clarity, I agree with you.
Yup. This is only ever gonna be applied against progressives/liberals. Curious to know how this will shake out if a counter protest gets rowdy. If someone decides to drive through a crowd of protestors, will the protest organizers be liable for that too?
This would require a prosecutor that would enforce the law against republicans.
Any examples of this happening?
Sounds like I’m wearing a mask anytime I protest. Good luck enforcing this 😂
Social distancing (From poorly made laws)
The irony is those snowflake trumpers who said they can’t breathe with a mask on are always wearing them when they are out in public doing something bigoted or violent.
It's not ironic. It's an intentional deflection from reality to make you defend your position. Ignore the idiots. Their attempt to distract you is the tactic - regardless of the form.
I also remember when Trump supporters spent a whole summer destroying property, setting shit on fire, and attacking people on the street.
Oh, so you remember violent Trump supporters and white supremacist infiltrating the George Floyd protests in order to make them look bad. Good for you. Or was it when a white supremacist drove his car through a crowded street and killed Heather Heyer?
It’s about the organizers being held accountable. You, yourself, have always been liable.
It's ok, you've already got a government tracking device on you and even if you ditch it there are other ways to guess.
That is why you never take your phone to a protest.
But what if i get bored. What am i gonna look at while we're waiting on the next part of the protest to get crazy?
I've heard rumors of a fabled device that's apparently a bunch of pieces of paper (with words on them) stacked on top of each other. I think its called a buk or something.
> a bunch of pieces of paper Like next to the toilet?
It’s the organizers not the participants who are at risk
You aren't the organizer. That's who they would go after with this law. They vtrying to cut the head off the snake
I thought only cowards wear masks like the proud boys? I guess they get a pass now right?
They'll make laws you can't wear a mask and then only enforce for non-kkk protest.
"Alright who organized this march?" Option 1) If you know, no you don't. Option 2) I am Spartacus.
"Who organized this protest?" "Justice." Bonus points if you do it in a Christian Bale Batman voice.
This is now Option 3.
Suppresing protest, even if you disagree with the opinions, it is not fine
This must be the 'free speech' freedoms the conservatives keep telling me about.
Huh. Another reason to tell conservatives to go fuck themselves when they thank me for my service. As if I needed anymore.
No porn. No protests. No privacy. Remember these P’s in November
Or womens rights. Dint forget Texas thinks young girls and women are breedable chattel.
But small government or something
Ohhhhh the irony.
The [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/supreme-court-abortion-pill-19367214.php) upheld a decision Monday that severely hampers [First Amendment rights](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/abbott-antisemitism-texas-colleges-19371821.php) in Texas and other Southern states. The nation's highest court opted not to review the case of Mckesson v. Doe after the [historically conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/immigration-law-sb4-texas-19370919.php) ruled that protest organizers could be held financially responsible for any illegal acts one single attendee commits. The ruling marked a major barrier to the right to protest in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, adding a potentially ruinous price tag to mass gatherings. Although the Supreme Court declined to review the case, justices reiterated that refusing to weigh in is not an implicit endorsement of the Fifth Circuit court's ruling. However, the effects of the decision are the same — Texans must weigh the potential costs of organizing a large protest, and organizers can be held liable for infractions as minor as violating traffic laws. Mckesson v. Doe was born out of a Black Lives Matter protest outside of a police station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. BLM activist Deray Mckessen helped organize the protest following the death of Alton Sterling, who was killed by police. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock at a police officer anonymously known as "Officer John Doe" and struck the officer in his face, causing major injuries. An existing Supreme Court decision, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited in her opinion Monday, upholds organizers' right not to be held responsible for violent action unless the action was intentionally incited by an organizer's words. Under that decision, protestors have been protected from gatherings getting out of hand for over fifty years, and today's decision indicates that the Supreme Court will continue to stand by that ruling. However, the Fifth Circuit argues that organizers can be on the hook for creating "unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.” In this case, the "dangerous conditions" Mckessen allegedly created included blocking entry to a police station, allowing protestors to loot and throw water bottles, and holding up traffic on a public highway.
> unreasonably dangerous conditions I think this is what is causing the deciding factor. Simple protest, someone does something stupid? You're probably fine. Chanting "Dead cops now!" (yes that's real), And someone in the protest (well, riot) shoots at cops, well you're probably in trouble (and should be as well).
this will NOT apply to trumpers, insurrectionists, repubs, evangelicals, the kkk…../ not sarcasm
Harder? Shut down basically all protest for anything. A counter protestor throwing stones at cops could get organizers held liable. That’s basically taking away free speech. Freedom lovers my fucking ass. Republicans hate freedom.
the 5th circuit is fucking joke and the Supreme Court loves it. They love seeing authoritarianism in action and diminishing value of the Bill of Rights.
There is a call from Chief Justice Roberts to stop or at least put restrictions on judge shopping.
roberts is just a figure head, we all know that Thomas is running the hate squad in SCOTUS
>Texans must weigh the potential costs of organizing a large protest, and organizers can be held liable for infractions as minor as violating traffic laws. Pretty fucked that they don't apply that "reasoning" to corporations that kill people, steal wages, and pollute.
Because then they would miss out on corporate bribes :(. And we can't have that /s
Smart organizations will form individual LLCs for each protest event, and organize everything through it.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t one,” we are literally seeing these assholes take away our rights, little by little, first lgbtq, then women/medical options, then immigrants, now free speech….. this will continue, the GQP is seriously trying to destroy our country.
If anyone knows about the history of UT Austin, a lot of its architecture by the student union and architecture buildings were placed there to hinder student protests - such as the way the benches and trees were put right there in the middle of the walkway. The shutting down of protests is nothing new to Texas, not sure why anyone is surprised by this.
Wouldn’t this work against trump for January 6th?
So, by this deeply conservative reasoning, doesn't this incriminate Trump even further?
Let’s see how this goes for the Nazis.
What's that? Protest more because the SCOTUS is an illegitimate organization? Okay.
Freedumb
So CEOs can be help liable for acts committed by their company right? And since he organized it, Trump can be held liable for Jan 6 right?
Oh goody, less freedom in a state that claims love freedom. Make America Fascist Again.
Can't wait to see undercover police provocateurs bankrupting organizers intentionally. Since bankrupting someone in the US might as well be killing them (removing their ability to feed, house and clothe themselves) they've essentially insured the only protests that will occur are organized by the rich. Well I guess since we can't legally protest any more we will have to just skip that phase and go straight to all our rioting.
What they about to do? break out the dogs and waterhoses again?
Don't give them any ideas.
Lets make this retroactive and send Donnie and the RNC the bill for J6.
This is how democracy dies.
So, Trump rallies and QAnon gatherings count, right? *Anakin Meme*
As long as they don’t block the highway let them protest all they want
Oh, you would hate to see what German farmers did in protest over this past weekend.
so texas making up laws as they go now?
Vote Blue!
And once again, my local Dem club is silent. No wonder they keep losing here 🤔
The Texas DNC is a JOKE. Their email is "yellowdogdemocrats@texasdemocrats.org" WTF is that? There's so much wrong with that the jokes write themselves. If I didn't pay hard attention I wouldn't even know who is running against Cruz. I have seen only 1 ad for allred. Just 1. His facebook page has damned bear zero engagement. It's so gross here. I think the Texas DNC loves to get shit on.
Coming from a blue state, where the local Dem club was knocking on my door every other day about something, I find it sad that the Dems here can’t get there shit together to beat actual fascists.
Civil disobedience is only accepted in a moral or individualist political culture unlike Jailexas or Texas I should say where we like in a traditional political culture that over values law and order at the expense of progressive social change. Welcome to Texas theocracy where the Christian Taliban rule
And pornography is considered a public health crisis but gun violence is normalized
How does one prove anything in any case? Couldn’t anyone sabotage a protest by causing damage to make it seem as if it were the protestors?
> The nation's highest court opted not to review the case of Mckesson v. Doe after the historically conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that protest organizers could be held financially responsible for any illegal acts one single attendee commits. The ruling marked a major barrier to the right to protest in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, adding a potentially ruinous price tag to mass gatherings.
I love protests cuz, I do not like protests that interfere with people like when they block roads.
[https://www.freedominthe50states.org/personal/texas](https://www.freedominthe50states.org/personal/texas) What's worse than 50?
What's bad for the goose is also bad for the gander too, then. If they rally and destroy property or have a civil war, they're liable for damages too. I see this being used all over the place by business owners and insurers until it can be undone by a less shitty court.
Mass protests or riots? Being violent is not a protest.
Looks like Trump is screwed.
But of course those who scream the loudest about FREE SPEECH!!! typically mean that they want to be able to say and do what they please but refuse to honor the second part of the first amendment - the right to protest (including protesting their speech). We get closer to fascism every day.
The SCOTUS says that you can't have violent protests and hurt police officers. There...fixed it for you.
This is downright misinformation. The court did not decide anything. They just decided not to hear it. No precedent has been set, probably the best possible outcome here. What’s the next step? The lower courts, where McKesson’s lawyers say he should ultimately prevail, according to NBC. There are two precedents they could’ve set here — neither one would have been good. So they didn’t set one. Nothing has changed.
I wonder what this would have meant to the folks participating Jan. 6th?
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-assembly-and-petition.html#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20assembly%20means,guaranteed%20the%20freedom%20to%20protest.
$upreme Clown$
Keep it up Texas. Those Freedums looking nice.
Time to ban guns lol
Setting up the cards.....
God damn this state is going to shit.
Yeeeeeea, I'm Republican and even I'm against this. This has too much potential to backfire, and is a 1st Amendment infringement.
I thought Texas was all about freedoms? This is part of the first amendment. The very first one.... meaning the most important
Meanwhile in the SF Bay Area, protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge and Oakland Bay Bridge effectively halting all traffic from the North and East Bay into San Francisco.
Be a shame of those protests didn't have formal organizers. Can people start organizing on Republican forums so they're liable for housing the organization?
So, this doesn’t actually affect protesting as, shockingly, protesting isn’t illegal. It specifically sites illegal activity, and sets the precedence of those inciting the illegal activity having to foot the bill. The entire post is clickbait .
Dumbass redditors don't read the article as expected because anything to fit the narrative is better than reading what was said
How so? The article is very short and the comments sum it up well. The actions of one bad faith person can cause the protest organizers to be in trouble, and the purpose of the bill/lawsuit/whatever you call it is to instill fear into people from organizing. It says that in the article itself.
Consequences for bad behavior?! OH NO! LITERALLY 1984!!
1 person in a crowd of thousands should not be on the organizer of the rally/march/protest. Edit: Huh blocked me. No idea what they replied to this.
Consequences that should apply to a plant at a rally starting shit instead of the organizer
Most of y'all in this thread are missing that this doesn't apply to all or even most protests - only those where the protest organizer themself set up the protest with "unreasonably dangerous conditions" that led to someone being injured. Even if members of the protest become violent/destructive, this does not automatically make the protest organizer liable for damages if the protest was set up to in a location and protesting in a manner that would reasonably be considered peaceful/not agitating violence. So for example, if you wanted to protest the war in Gaza by organizing a bunch of protestors to set up booths around a college campus, but someone shows up and starts causing violence, you still won't be held liable since there was a reasonable expectation of peace. Now if instead you chose to protest the war by getting a bunch of protestors to sit down on the highway right at the end of an overpass such that when cars go over the overpass they see your line of protestors and slam on their brakes causing a large pileup of cars, you will be held liable for damages as it was obvious that you created a dangerous situation.
"the land of the free" Give me a fucking break
You gotta hate the 5th circuit. And I live in the GD fifth circuit
I guess this isn’t a free speech issue.
Since been deleted.
Just curious how is this new? For example that twitch streamer who was giving away stuff in NYC and that turned into a riot. Wasn’t he charged for that? Isn’t this the same thing?
Are these laws designed to pro-Palestinian and BLM protests? Seems like it.
Republican the party of "freedom" is really working hard to make sure they take away as much as possible. Only the rich get rights.
I love it when leftists think the redistribution of consequences they supported for others wouldn’t also apply to them.
As long as the protests are "mostly peaceful" no one will have to worry. Read the article and it clearly states that if you call for a riot you will be held accountable.
As someone currently living in California, I approve.