@fkamiah17
Here’s some Stateside chilling effect, holding protest organisers fully liable for the behaviour of all protesters, however loosely affiliated.
Thankfully Swella is no longer HS.
@JenLucPiquant A part of 1st Amendment right in the U.S. Consitution is the right to assemble... The Supreme Court's job is to decide if laws are made in accordance to the Constitution.
THIS IS NOT! WHAT DID THEY DO???
You guys gotta stop this... You guys gotta hit the streets...
@gpumoto @JenLucPiquant
I have organized quite a few protests. As the organizer I always knew that I had a responsibility to make efforts to keep them peaceful. That's the history of our first amendment right in the USA.
Hopefully, the jury won't side with the cop in this case, but I don't personally feel that the Supreme Court should have given a pass to allow political violence.
@GreenFire @gpumoto @JenLucPiquant As the article points out, any member of the police, KKK, Proud Boys, or 3-letter agency could infiltrate any protest and anything they do would sabotage the organizer and everyone’s right to assemble, if this stands. And the thing to do to unseat this is to get SCOTUS to rule on a different case.
That the 5th Circuit would go after DeRay is just awful.
Thanks for organizing.
@skry @gpumoto @JenLucPiquant
I'm not going to read the court case, filings and rulings so if it is as you assert, I have no idea of your qualifications legally though, that sounds bad which is just another reason to help get out the vote for Democrats.
The anarchists were the ones that disrupted one of my peaceful protests with political violence, but I wasn't able to be held liable because I made a point of doing all I could to make it clear that ours was a lawful, peaceful demonstration.
@skry @GreenFire @JenLucPiquant
I wanted to add some context here this atricle may be easier for some to understand.
The 5 circuite court refused to hear the case again. The ACLU is hoping a different case precedent will preceed this one. Without the SCOTUS shooting this down courts may choose which precedent they follow.
@skry @gpumoto @JenLucPiquant
It does seem like a helpful description:
“After today’s news, people should not be afraid that they’ll face a ruinous lawsuit if they exercise their rights to protest. The Court just last year affirmed that negligence can never be the governing standard when it comes to speech, and Justice Sotomayor suggests it simply didn’t need to say so again here,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
@noyes
I wondered that too
@JenLucPiquant to pretect the 1st there's the 2nd Amendment for ya.
Arrest the Supreme Court. Appoint a new one.
Subversive destruction of our democracy.
Today.
Call the Senate into session.
@JenLucPiquant *Takes out TX bingo card and looks it over*
Ah yes... it seems all I need now is regulating who can own a business/ travel 😉 and we have a bingo!
@JenLucPiquant Hence my problems with and contempt for the courts of law. If they make an incorrect or unjust ruling, which they often do (I call them “Dred Scott decisions”), there is nothing that the average citizen can do about it but accept it and be glad it wasn’t even worse.
And this ruling is an archetypal Dred Scott decision. It’s obviously wrong and blatantly unconstitutional, but can’t be appealed without splitting the country.
Southern states are pushing more towards secession with every batshit crazy law they bring to the table.