Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 15, 2024

The Supreme Court's inaction has effectively abolished the right to mass protest across three states, allowing a lower court's ruling to seemingly infringe upon the Constitution's First Amendment.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Good! No more "mostly peaceful" protests.

#1 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-15 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." is just another of those rights that republicans don't give a ---- about.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 07:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The case questioned whether DeRay Mckesson, the leader of a 2016 Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, could be held liable for negligence after an unidentified member of the march threw a rock at a police officer's face, seriously injuring him.

Oh, of course, this was black people protesting, makes sense now.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Good! No more "mostly peaceful" protests."

GREAT idea. Especially since 93% of BLM protests were 100% peaceful.

As opposed to, say, J6, which was 100% violent.*

*(using the same barometer)

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-04-15 07:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's pretty easy, if you can't behave yourself while protesting; you aren't actually protesting you're rioting.

#5 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-15 07:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's pretty easy, if you can't behave yourself while protesting; you aren't actually protesting you're rioting.

#5 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES AT 2024-04-15 07:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG

We need a Clearly Didn't Read the Article flag.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"It's pretty easy, if you can't behave yourself while protesting; you aren't actually protesting you're rioting."

A friend went to the local protest, and noticed guys in Hawaiian shirts showing up out of nowhere, throwing a projectile, then running away.

Should YOU go to jail for that?

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-04-15 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I vote yes!

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 07:48 PM | Reply

Oh I read the article Truth, back to your trailer park bud.

As for you DANFORTH, I don't go to protests strictly for the potential of something getting out of hand; I won't ever find myself in that situation you described. I can cite a specific example as to Jan 6th, someone had asked me a few weeks before that protest if I'd be going and I told them no for reasons just mentioned. Turns out my gut instinct was correct, a riot broke out and people were arrested. ---- even people who weren't really doing anything wrong were arrested and sent to prison.

So yeah I believe if you put yourself in a situation where others around you can jeopardize your freedom then maybe just maybe that's on you. Can't have it both ways.

#9 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-15 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"---- even people who weren't really doing anything wrong were arrested and sent to prison."

Link?

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-04-15 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well if you read it, you clearly didn't understand it.

FTA: The nation's highest court decided Monday not to hear Mckesson v. Doe, leaving in place a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that punishes protest organizers with extreme financial consequences if even one participant commits an illegal act. The decision, which now stands as law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, makes it dangerous and practically impossible to organize mass protests.

The article is about the SC allowing a 5th Circuit Court decision to let stand a law in 3 states placing massive fines on the organizers of large protests if ONE person commits a crime.

It has nothing to do with the difference between a protest and a riot.

What will happen is for ANY protest of ANY size, the group opposing said protest will send a person to cause mayhem or even just a little trouble and the organizers of the protest will be on the hook for the fines.

Think of it this way, as it will impact you.

YOU set up a protest of the local Drag Show Story Hour. A hidden BLM ANTIFA COMMIE infiltrates your protest and throws a beer bottle at a cop separating the protesters from the Drag Show participants.

Suddenly YOU will be facing a massive fine.

If you can't understand how that is a problem, you just might be a fascist

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 07:59 PM | Reply

So yeah I believe if you put yourself in a situation where others around you can jeopardize your freedom then maybe just maybe that's on you. Can't have it both ways.

#9 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Bluewaffles doesn't understand.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 08:00 PM | Reply

... leaving in place a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that punishes protest organizers with extreme financial consequences if even one participant commits an illegal act. ...

OK, now, let's apply this decision to the J6 protesters.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-15 08:02 PM | Reply

Free Speech is only for Corporate Personhoods, according to Republicans.

Anything they can do to silence it in public protests is a win for them.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-15 08:16 PM | Reply

leaving in place a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that punishes protest organizers with extreme financial consequences if even one participant commits an illegal act.

This might be a little hyperbole, but seems reasonable.


OK, now, let's apply this decision to the J6 protesters.

#13 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Brings up an interesting point, the "rally" had ended, at what point does one go from a participant to their own agency.

And why stop at J6? What about all the BLM rioting?

How much did BLM take in? Why isn't that going to damages too?

#15 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-15 08:43 PM | Reply

Whataboutism BLM! Whataboutism BLM!

whataboutism
/(h)w'd'boudiz'm/

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?")

.[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]

en.wikipedia.org

If you've ever make a post here that isn't some sort of logical fallacy, it'll be the first time.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-15 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't go to protests strictly for the potential of something getting out of hand"

Yeah, but someone on the other side of the crowd, a guy wearing black and gold, throws a Molotov cocktail during an otherwise peaceful gathering. If the MC ends up killing an innocent, should you get the death penalty?

"yeah I believe if you put yourself in a situation where others around you can jeopardize your freedom then maybe just maybe that's on you"

No you don't. And if you do, you're stupid: you've just given over your freedom to whatever rando anarchist has a beef that day. Plus, you've done EXACTLY what the anarchist wants: blame your most convenient political enemy for the RANDOs terrorism.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-04-15 09:24 PM | Reply

"What about all the BLM rioting?"

Anyone breaking the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Now you do J6, or Donald Trump.

On a related topic, do you see any cogent difference between protests due to a painful truth, versus riots based on obvious lies?

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-04-15 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

@#15 ... And why stop at J6? What about all the BLM rioting? ...

Oh geesh, why does your current alias lob me the easy ones?

I mean, is it that ignorant?

The answer to the question your current alias poses is that the J6 protesters apparently wanted to disrupt the process of approving a valid election. An insurrection, as apparently determined by one Court.

The BLM riots were against police mistreatment of Blacks, because, well, they were Black.


That's my opinion.

What's yours?



#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-15 09:41 PM | Reply

Corky, whataboutism is a logical fallacy that would get you laughed out of a debate if you tried to lose it. It's effectively saying I don't like the point I am making so look at this over here. A judge would DQ immediately so get that ---- out of here.

#20 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-15 10:03 PM | Reply

Use it* not lose it.

#21 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-15 10:05 PM | Reply

@#20 ... Corky, whataboutism is a logical fallacy that would get you laughed out of a debate ...

Yet that seems to be most of the many arguments proffered by the right-leaning aliases on this site.

So, if your current alias seems to admit that their comments (and ones your current alias may have posted), oh so many comments are fallacious, how can I not disagree?



#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-15 10:32 PM | Reply

whataboutism is a logical fallacy that would get you laughed out of a debate if you tried to lose it.
~ BlueWaffles

I don't believe this is true.

Whataboutism is a form the Socratic method, where you compare and contrast similarly situated sets of facts to discover an underlying rule.

The BLM riots were against police mistreatment of Blacks, because, well, they were Black.
~ GasLighter

Doesn't matter why they happened. It really doesn't.

Law should be the law.

#23 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-15 10:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Doesn't matter why they happened. It really doesn't.

Law should be the law.

#23 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Can the law be unjust? Can the implementation of the law be unjust?

If so, what avenues are open to the citizenry?

Keep in mind that the unjust law protects itself

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-15 11:27 PM | Reply

SCOTUS declines to hear cases all of the time. The lower court ruling stands. Don't like the law that's in the books, go through the legislative process if the courts don't deliver the outcome you are seeking.

#25 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-04-15 11:59 PM | Reply

Nice to see the free speech absolutist chime in

#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-16 07:11 AM | Reply

Good! No more "mostly peaceful" protests.

#1 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Like Charlottesville? But what about the good people on both sides?

You maga maroons sound like Russians more and more every day.

If you love Russia so much just move there.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-16 10:14 AM | Reply

Donner, my position is very firm on this. I don't care which side of the political aisle someone is on. If you're going to be at a place protesting perhaps it might be wise for everyone protesting to take down their ID's and have copies in a registry to protect all involved. Much like Biden's attempts at a gun registry. It's just to make sure everyone stays safe right?

#28 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-16 11:38 AM | Reply

"Donner, my position is very firm on this. I don't care which side of the political aisle someone is on."

That's nice Commie. I am sure pootys pants is so proud!

And I am "very firm" too.

This will not stand. Not here where I live behind the "blue wall".

The nation's highest court decided Monday not to hear Mckesson v. Doe, leaving in place a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that punishes protest organizers with extreme financial consequences if even one participant commits an illegal act. The decision, which now stands as law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, makes it dangerous and practically impossible to organize mass protests.

That may be the "law" in Texas Mississippi and Louisiana (axis of evil?) but it will never be the law here.

It's just another maga inspired Supreme Court decision (or lack of decision) that will backfire badly. You cannot hold everyone accountable in a protest for the actions of one.

You cannot abridge the freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances because of the actions of one person.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the 2nd amendment is to be sacrosanct then so is the 1st.

Even more so.


#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-16 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donner it's just about making sure everyone is safe and held accountable. Again ... much like Biden's gun registry.

#30 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-04-16 11:58 AM | Reply

Donner it's just about making sure everyone is safe and held accountable. Again ... much like Biden's gun registry.

#30 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

It's about limiting freedom of speech and making us less safe is nothing like Biden's executive order. Which had nothing to do with a "gun registry".

But it WAS focused on:

-Reinforcing responsible gun ownership, including by requiring safe storage of firearms and reporting of lost and stolen firearms;

-Strengthening gun background checks, including by enacting universal background checks legislation and removing barriers to completing enhanced background checks; and

-Holding the gun industry accountable, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and enacting firearm-specific liability laws to ensure that victims of gun violence have their day in court.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-16 12:25 PM | Reply

Donner it's just about making sure everyone is safe and held accountable. Again ... much like Biden's gun registry.
#30 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

What a naive take. HAHAHA!

#32 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-04-16 12:43 PM | Reply

I am not sure why I haven't just plonked bluewaffles and oneironaut. I am all about logic and good discussion but when you have nothing to offer of any validity and are hopefully just stirring the pot (and literally not that dumb) you add no value to the discussion.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-04-16 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This case should have been sent back down by the SCOTUS for a review based on the new determination of law set by the precedence they established. It wasn't. Why?

#34 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-04-16 02:54 PM | Reply

#34 They're officially making the 5th Circuit states a petri dish for regressive, unAmerican policies. I pity anyone unlucky enough to live there.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-16 03:37 PM | Reply

Good! No more "mostly peaceful" protests.

#1 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

We always knew the right's obsession with the constitution wasn't a genuine or good faith belief.

They wipe their asses with it every chance they get.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2024-04-16 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By this standard, Trump should be charged for J6.

Also, it's hilarious that Luftwaffles thinks it was his "gut" that told him not to go to J6.

Couldn't have possibly been the telegraphed intent everyone else saw, could it?

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2024-04-16 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If I'm reading the law correctly all of the protesters are responsible for each other's actions. If that's correct then this is definitely something I oppose.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-04-16 04:16 PM | Reply

38

the article says "organizers".

It's sort of like accepting civil liability for what you host or organize.

If it were a party at your house that got out of hand and someone was injured....can you the homeowner or resident be held civilly liable? I believe so.

Same thing here....only it's anywhere you "organize" a peaceful protest....that turns out badly.

But.......I think your homeowners insurance will cover you for that.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-16 04:23 PM | Reply

So the cops can start a riot at your peaceful protest, and that makes it your fault.

There's no surprise Republicans love this ruling. Republicans cannot stand protest. It makes them think maybe people don't like Republican policies, and they take that personally and it hurts their precious little feelings.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-16 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If I'm reading the law correctly all of the protesters are responsible for each other's actions. If that's correct then this is definitely something I oppose.

#38 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Yet ANOTHER republican position that jeff abhors yet will not get him to change his vote.

One wonders how sincere he is.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-16 05:37 PM | Reply

#39 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You presumably have control over who is in your home for a party.

You can't control who's in "your protest" in a public space.

This is an absurd ruling and a stupid punt by SCOTUS.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2024-04-16 06:34 PM | Reply

42 It's more than a punt. The lower court ruling is now the law of the land in three states with a combined population of over 35 million people.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-16 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hate to say this, because I am largely not in favor of large
structural changes to the way we run this country. But IF
the Dems keep the White House, and IF they hold the Senate, and
IF they capture the House, I hope they pass several things that
seemingly, need one party in control to pass.

1). Maximum Age Limits on Office, (67 the retirement age, or a max of
69 by the end of one's term) applied
across the board, POTUS, SCOTUS, House, Senate.
2). Term Limits, 2-3 elected terms max.

3). No more 'lifetime appointments'. SCOTUS now gets elected terms (2-3 terms max, 4-6 yrs ea)
And they have to campaign each time to stay in the SCOTUS.

make these 3 changes, and America will get better...

#44 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-04-17 10:44 AM | Reply

#44 I'm not sure mandatory retirement is constitutional. Here's an interesting article about it. scholarship.law.stjohns.edu

Ultimately, compelling arguments on the matter can probably be made in either direction, and the body making the ultimate choice on which argument to adopt will have a vested interest in finding such laws to be unconstitutional.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-17 11:18 AM | Reply

-You can't control who's in "your protest" in a public space.

agreed

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-17 11:26 AM | Reply

(4) Overturn Citizens United

(5) Reform Campaign Financing to include low giving limits and Public Financing paid for by the taxes on Media that makes so much money from the divisiveness they create.... so that politicians are beholding to the voters, not the donors.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-17 11:50 AM | Reply

44

even if you get significant dem majorities in both houses.....I can't imagine any of that happening.

They won't term limit themselves nor age limit themselves.

and you're insane if you suggest supreme court justices campaign.

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-17 11:55 AM | Reply

For Once (sadly) I agree with you Eberly,
except for that last part (of course).
No. Insanity, is voting for Trump, and
expecting anything but the end of our nation
as we know it as the result.

So apparently, some 40-45% of this nation is insane. Almost without exception, this appears to be a Republican problem.

And fyi, you don't ASK the SCOTUS to campaign you dictate it to them. You know that whole 'We the people' get to decide thing. At least, that was the way it was meant to be.

Besides, the people ought to have some voice in deciding if they agree w a Justice's reasoning ability, instead of just having to endure it until they are 85 or dead...

#49 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-04-17 07:28 PM | Reply

49

All judges currently appointed? They all have to campaign?

That's a lot of judges.

You want Americans for Prosperity to directly attempt to influence elections for judges?

With Citizens United helping them?

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-17 07:39 PM | Reply

For Once (sadly) I agree with you Eberly,
except for that last part (of course).
No. Insanity, is voting for Trump, and
expecting anything but the end of our nation
as we know it as the result.
So apparently, some 40-45% of this nation is insane. Almost without exception, this appears to be a Republican problem.
And fyi, you don't ASK the SCOTUS to campaign you dictate it to them. You know that whole 'We the people' get to decide thing. At least, that was the way it was meant to be.
Besides, the people ought to have some voice in deciding if they agree w a Justice's reasoning ability, instead of just having to endure it until they are 85 or dead...
#49 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-04-17 07:28 PM

Michael Moore predicts that Biden will lose to protestors sitting out the vote entirely.

SCOTUS exists to protect the ownership society and delay progressive legislation. They do not service a functional democracy, imo.

#51 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2024-04-17 08:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort