this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
501 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
As part of this crusade, two of the Fifth Circuit’s judges effectively eliminated the First Amendment right to organize a protest in a case known as Doe v. Mckesson.Sadly, the object hit Doe and allegedly caused “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head, along with other compensable losses.”
The Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that “civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.”
Under Elrod’s opinion, Mckesson could be held liable if the unknown rock-thrower turns out to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan who showed up for the very purpose of undermining the Black Lives Matter movement by associating them with violence.
To understand just how ridiculous Elrod’s decision is, and how egregiously she defies the Supreme Court’s caselaw, it’s helpful to start with the facts of the Claiborne case.
This is, to put it mildly, a very unusual way to read a Supreme Court opinion that held that threats to break someone’s neck can be First Amendment-protected speech, which calls for “extreme care” before targeting protest organizers, and which laid out only three very specific circumstances that “might justify” an exception.
Saved 84% of original text.