This Black Lives Matter court decision is wild

[Professor Emeritus]

So just last year lawsuits against Trump for the violence at his rallies were dismissed by the 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, because it was determined that even though Trump had encouraged his supporters to be violent, and encouraged his supporters to kick those specific protesters out of the rally, he hadn't specifically encouraged them to commit those particular acts of violence against those particular protesters, so his statements were protected under free speech and he can't be held accountable.

And then this happened:

Speech Rights for Trump, but Not DeRay Mckesson

A panel from the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against DeRay Mckesson of Black Lives Matter solely for being the leader of a protest where a random person threw an object at a police officer. He never urged anyone to throw anything, never advocated any violence at all. But the court gave this bullshyt justification:

Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger...and notwithstanding did so anyway....Mckesson's negligent actions were the causes of Officer Doe's injuries.

Pure bullshyt. They're saying that Trump can't be held accountable when he ORDERS a confrontation between his supporters and the protesters, but a BLM leader is accountable solely because he was in charge of a protest where such a confrontation happened to occur completely outside of his speech or actions.

If this precedent holds it could be the end of protest in America. You couldn't hold ANY protest where the police might show up, because they if anything happened you could be charged with "instigating" even if you had nothing to do with it. Hell, your opponents could send ringers into your crowd just to start shyt and YOU will get arrested just for being there. The chilling effect would be enormous.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

I would say, "Those 2 verdicts contradict each other and will go to the S.C." But it seems the S.C. is stacked in a terrible way, so those verdicts may somehow still hold.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I would say, "Those 2 verdicts contradict each other and will go to the S.C." But it seems the S.C. is stacked in a terrible way, so those verdicts may somehow still hold.

Yup. And it should be pointed out that the three judges on the 5th circuit panel are a Trump appointee, a Bush appointee, and a Reagan appointee.

 

[acri1]

The court system is going to be (even more of) a joke for the next couple decades thanks to 2016.

Spoiler

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

He really is stumbling toward a fascist dictatorship.

Thanks, Hillary.

 

[Jhoon]

The court system is going to be (even more of) a joke for the next couple decades thanks to 2016.

Spoiler

The judicial system is going to look completely different in 2 years.

You fire all the lower court judges and expand the Supreme Court. The constitution is trash.

 

[Pressure]

Black people get bad sentences everyday compares to their white counterparts.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Black people get bad sentences everyday compares to their white counterparts.

It's not about a sentence. It's about a Constitutional precedent. There are basically three options:

#1: The US Supreme Court declares protest leaders liable for the actions of all persons who attend their protests, and basically shyts on the concept of freedom to protest in America. At the same time, they also declare Trump liable for the violence at his protests.

#2: The US Supreme Court rebukes the BLM decision, saying that DeRay Mckesson and other such leaders have the freedom to lead protests without being responsible for the actions of random a$$holes, and exposes those three 6th Circuit justices as clowns.

#3: We have a constitutional crisis as courts uphold absolutely contradictory verdicts without resolution, and the public is given the impression that your freedom to protest now is contingent on the political party you belong to and the color of your skin.

 

[Pressure]

It's not about a sentence. It's about a Constitutional precedent. There are basically three options:

#1: The US Supreme Court declares protest leaders liable for the actions of all persons who attend their protests, and basically shyts on the concept of freedom to protest in America. At the same time, they also declare Trump liable for the violence at his protests.

#2: The US Supreme Court rebukes the BLM decision, saying that DeRay Mckesson and other such leaders have the freedom to lead protests without being responsible for the actions of random a$$holes, and exposes those three 6th Circuit justices as clowns.

#3: We have a constitutional crisis as courts uphold absolutely contradictory verdicts without resolution, and the public is given the impression that your freedom to protest now is contingent on the political party you belong to and the color of your skin.

The Haymarket Affair — Illinois Labor History Society

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The Haymarket Affair — Illinois Labor History Society

If you want to compare it to a 140 year old trial famous as one of the greatest travesties of justice in American history.

They immediately started an annual holiday in their honour, the governor pardoned them just a couple years later, anc there are statues in their honour in Chicago now.

 

[ORDER_66]

 

[Pressure]

If you want to compare it to a 140 year old trial famous as one of the greatest travesties of justice in American history.

They immediately started an annual holiday in their honour, the governor pardoned them just a couple years later, anc there are statues in their honour in Chicago now.

I do.

And in line with my first post, people get unjust sentences everyday. There's plenty of historical precedent for unjust rulings being applied despite being at odds with settled case law.

Just over a week ago:

Opinion | Supreme Court Liberals Raise Alarm Bells About Roe v. Wade


My point. The courts only function based on the ideology of the judges who sit on them.

A more important point, if we're only going to protest because we don't think it will get us in trouble then we've already missed the point.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I do.

And in line with my first post, people get unjust sentences everyday. There's plenty of historical precedent for unjust rulings being applied despite being at odds with settled case law.

Just over a week ago:

Opinion | Supreme Court Liberals Raise Alarm Bells About Roe v. Wade


My point. The courts only function based on the ideology of the judges who sit on them.

A more important point, if we're only going to protest because we don't think it will get us in trouble then we've already missed the point.

On that we agree. More frequent and consequential arrests of protesters might be a decent way to separate the wheat from the chaff.