Liberty Fighting Justice [2010 with AI background]
One of the primary tenets of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is the right to “peacefully assemble,” re. the right to protest. It has been an anchor in the right to free speech and has been presented to us as one of the underlying differences between the US and other countries. The fact that we allow our citizens to protest is supposed to be one of the things that make us better than anyone else.
There are some caveats. First, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned lower courts to “not read anything” into the decision. In other words, by rejecting this particular case the court does not rule out the possibility that it might take up the full matter at a later date. Second, it is important to realize that in rejecting the case, justices did not hear full arguments on the matter, which would give the matter the weight of precedence in subsequent cases.
However, the decision is still troubling. The decision will most definitely hold some influence over lower courts. Yet another Pandora’s Box has been opened (how many of those damn boxes does Pandora have?).
What’s all the fuss, Gus? Back in 2016 (remember 2016?), a man named DeRay Mckesson organized a protest in Louisiana after police killed a black man in Baton Rouge. During that protest, someone unidentified threw a “rock-like object” and it hit an officer. Since the rock thrower couldn’t be identified, the officer, hiding behind the moniker John Doe, decided to sue Mckesson for not controlling the protest he instigated. The initial federal court threw out the suit, which was, unquestionably in my opinion, the correct decision. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to pick it back up because Mckesson didn’t lead the protest onto the highway, resulting in a standoff with police and the injury to the officer.
If this is going to be the case, someone let that former president know that he is now on the hook for every action taken by protestors on January 6, since he organized that melee. It’s all his fault.
More seriously, though, we have to look at this decision as a warning to anyone who might consider organizing future protests. How the fuck are you supposed to “control” a crowd who is righteously angry? Do you remember what was going on in 2016? We were finally standing up to the fact that people of color were being indiscriminately murdered by police! There was every reason in the world to protest and every reason to exhibit anger as part of those protests.
So, what happens when the Supreme Court does something really stupid like take away the right to gender-affirming care for everyone, not just trans kids in Ohio? Is that topic safe to protest? Can we get everyone on the highway? What happens this fall when Republican Governors mobilize the National Guard because they don’t like the way the elections go? Is that going to be safe to protest? What about when the Supreme Court overturns the January 6 convictions on a technicality? Are we safe to protest that fatality of justice?
The nature of protests is that the more people participating, the more seriously the protest is taken. However, the more people protesting, the more likely it is that someone is going to misbehave, often out of anger at a gross miscarriage of justice and the fear that their opinion is not being heard by those in power. The more government leaders attempt to shut down protests, as they did the Black Lives Matter protests of 2016, the more angry protestors are going to be. If elected leaders aren’t going to pay attention to their constituents through the manners prescribed by law, then protestors are more likely to resort to more extreme manners of communication.
Did we learn nothing in history class?
We need to protect the right to protest. When those we’ve elected to uphold the law take it upon themselves to ignore the law, protest may become the only way we have of solving the problem.
One of the primary tenets of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is the right to “peacefully assemble,” re. the right to protest. It has been an anchor in the right to free speech and has been presented to us as one of the underlying differences between the US and other countries. The fact that we allow our citizens to protest is supposed to be one of the things that make us better than anyone else.
Well, as of Monday, April 15, 2024, you can pretty much toss that one in the can. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its endless bafflement, ruled against the First Amendment in rejecting an appeal from DeRay Mckesson in a case that stems from a 2016 protest over the police killing of a Black man in Baton Rouge. What the court appears to have said is that the person who organizes a protest is responsible for the actions of the people participating in the protest.
There are some caveats. First, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned lower courts to “not read anything” into the decision. In other words, by rejecting this particular case the court does not rule out the possibility that it might take up the full matter at a later date. Second, it is important to realize that in rejecting the case, justices did not hear full arguments on the matter, which would give the matter the weight of precedence in subsequent cases.
However, the decision is still troubling. The decision will most definitely hold some influence over lower courts. Yet another Pandora’s Box has been opened (how many of those damn boxes does Pandora have?).
What’s all the fuss, Gus? Back in 2016 (remember 2016?), a man named DeRay Mckesson organized a protest in Louisiana after police killed a black man in Baton Rouge. During that protest, someone unidentified threw a “rock-like object” and it hit an officer. Since the rock thrower couldn’t be identified, the officer, hiding behind the moniker John Doe, decided to sue Mckesson for not controlling the protest he instigated. The initial federal court threw out the suit, which was, unquestionably in my opinion, the correct decision. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to pick it back up because Mckesson didn’t lead the protest onto the highway, resulting in a standoff with police and the injury to the officer.
If this is going to be the case, someone let that former president know that he is now on the hook for every action taken by protestors on January 6, since he organized that melee. It’s all his fault.
More seriously, though, we have to look at this decision as a warning to anyone who might consider organizing future protests. How the fuck are you supposed to “control” a crowd who is righteously angry? Do you remember what was going on in 2016? We were finally standing up to the fact that people of color were being indiscriminately murdered by police! There was every reason in the world to protest and every reason to exhibit anger as part of those protests.
So, what happens when the Supreme Court does something really stupid like take away the right to gender-affirming care for everyone, not just trans kids in Ohio? Is that topic safe to protest? Can we get everyone on the highway? What happens this fall when Republican Governors mobilize the National Guard because they don’t like the way the elections go? Is that going to be safe to protest? What about when the Supreme Court overturns the January 6 convictions on a technicality? Are we safe to protest that fatality of justice?
The nature of protests is that the more people participating, the more seriously the protest is taken. However, the more people protesting, the more likely it is that someone is going to misbehave, often out of anger at a gross miscarriage of justice and the fear that their opinion is not being heard by those in power. The more government leaders attempt to shut down protests, as they did the Black Lives Matter protests of 2016, the more angry protestors are going to be. If elected leaders aren’t going to pay attention to their constituents through the manners prescribed by law, then protestors are more likely to resort to more extreme manners of communication.
Did we learn nothing in history class?
We need to protect the right to protest. When those we’ve elected to uphold the law take it upon themselves to ignore the law, protest may become the only way we have of solving the problem.
Share this:
Like this:
You might also like