Supreme Court refuses to defend constitutional right to organize
Supreme Court refuses to defend constitutional right to organize
redphoenixnews.com
Supreme Court refuses to defend constitutional right to organize
21 comments
-
-
The US s rapidly devolving into an anti free speech nation.
Makes me think this is what the TikTok ban is really about. They don't see themselves as being able to control the narrative and are blaming TikTok.
-
The right to protest goes beyond free speech. It is one of the core balances of power between the governed and their government. Without it we are little more than slaves to the will of the powerful.
-
The right to protest is also a protection for the government. People will have grievances, if they can't express themselves peacefully then they'll express themselves violently.
-
Has Biden’s response to an entire generation of people calling for a ceasefire shaken you of the notion that our opinions matter to the ruling class? Cause if not, I’ve got some bad news.
-
-
It is not being banned, it's being forced to separate itself from its Chinese parent company. Hell, no longer having ties to the CCP would open it up to far more free speech.
And people keep acting like this is some new thing. It isn't. Other app companies have been forced to separate themselves from China. This isn't unusual.
-
-
-
This isn't correct. Here's what the actual denial of the case says (which I'll take from an earlier comment of mine on this in another thread):
In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective stand- ard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “de- mand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punish- ment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”
...
Because this Court may deny certi- orari for many reasons, including that the law is not in need of further clarification, its denial today expresses no view about the merits of Mckesson’s claim. Although the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent deci- sion in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do.
This is basically saying "we just had a case about this, and the ruling is clear. Lower courts can go back and deal with it. There's no reason for us to take it up again." It's a procedural nothingburger.
-
American legal parlance is a nothingburger, not its actual real-world effects. This ruling has considerable effects in the states it's relevant in.
-
Not really. The new precedent is clear, and they're being told to go back and fix their rulings in light of that.
-
-
-
As soon as they defend it, people will start organizing against the SC. I mean, I would if I lived anywhere close to DC for Roe v Wade alone.
-
Well yea they have been told to help squash the labor organizing. Everything that’s going on right now, price gouging, layoffs while posting record profits, attacks against the NLRB, the housing markets and rental price gouging and scams, the push for child labor, the healthcare “crisis”, the extraction of our data to AI companies, the misinformation that is being pumped into every social media and MSM outlet is a direct attack against our Mainstreet American way of life. Why? Who knows. But you can’t look at every industry and tell me otherwise or that there isn’t some sort of collaboration going on. It’s absolutely intentional.
-
/shock /s
21 comments
The DOJ: Holds Donald Trump liable for the illegal actions of all Jan 6 protestors.
Conservatives: "Wait, not like that!"
This is legitimately dangerous though. Now big oil can just hire an actor to throw a rock and a climate protest can be shut down. Police protests are pretty much illegal now.
They would never do that. They've done it all the time before, but surely they've learned their lesson.