The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states
It is no longer safe to organize a protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas.
Read in Vox: https://apple.news/AgbB_Hz0_SZSvZeRPJdMzOw
Shared from Apple News
Best Wishes and Hugs,Scottie
Published by Scotties Playtime
I am an older gay guy in a long-term wonderful relationship. My spouse and I are in our 36th year together. I love politics and news. I enjoy civil discussions and have no taboo subjects. My pronouns are he / him / his and my email is Scottiestoybox@gmail.com
View all posts by Scotties Playtime
Scottie's Playtime 
I think the intent is clear: a means to suppress free speech without actually taking away the right to free speech. How Orwellian is that!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Barry. Very true. Remember this court is republican so they are the part of freedom (to restrict the freedom of others) and they claim they support the constitution while the democrats don’t, then the republicans vote to restrict people’s rights. Best wishes. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking at what is happening in America today, it seems to me that the “letter of the law” is more important than the “spirit of the law” – the “spirit” is how the courts in NZ interpret legislation, and as liberally as they are able.
In the US, a small group of un-elected elderly men have the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit, and overrule any legislation as they see fit, overriding the will of an elected legislature. Here, we operate under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which means that while the legislature, executive and judiciary are independent of each other, neither the executive nor the judiciary can overrule decisions made by the body elected by the people – the Parliament. Additionally no Parliament can impose restrictions or limitations on what Parliament may decide in the future.
We don’t have a codified constitution, instead relying on convention, common law (inherited from the British tradition), customary law (inherited from Māori tradition), ordinary legislation plus goodwill and cooperation for our rights and freedoms. In theory we don’t have the “protections” “guaranteed” in the US constitution, yet in every freedom index, human rights index and freedom from corruption index are are at or near the top, and well above the USA. Just a hunch, but I feel that the fact that we rely heavily on goodwill and cooperation to make it all work has served us better than the codified, written constitution that the US and each of its states operates under.
One final thought about the judiciary. Here appointments are strictly non-political and are not discussed, debated or voted on in the legislature. It’s not lawful to set a mandatory retirement age for any class of work in NZ, except for one: judges, who must retire by the age of 70.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Barry. I agree with you and I like your system better. Right now the US seems ruled by old white men unable to accept the changes in society since they were in their prime 50 years ago. Best wishes. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, they didn’t precisely say one cannot protest, nor even that one cannot organize a big demonstration/protest. But they held that a protest organizer/s can be found financially liable for an injury when a brick or something was thrown at a police officer, causing the injury, even though the organizer did not throw the item, and the injured party agreed it was someone else. Justice Sotomayor wrote a good dissent, too, that’s worthwhile reading. I’d link it if I could recall where I saw it earlier, but it should be easily searched since someone already published it online.
But still, yes. It’s definitely going to chill some activism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is more clarity on Tengrain’s post on this today. It isn’t whatever I read yesterday, but there is more, though not a link to Sotomayor’s dissent, which seemed to point to a ray of hope. Wish I could recall where I saw that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crap, sorry; it was stormy here yesterday, and I’ve been in a hurry today, making me a bit disjointed. 🙃 The MPS link is https://mockpaperscissors.com/2024/04/16/alito-no-free-speech-for-thee/#comments
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ali. I read all of Tengrain’s post. Here is the key to take away.
If protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again, and somewhere Sam Alito is smiling.
Ali here is the truth. This is not the final ruling. This is the right wing part of the court trying to send up a trial balloon to see how it lands. They left open that if a case gets to them, they might rule differently. And you know that case is coming … after someone is badly injured by this ruling. Tell me if you would go to a protest if at any time someone you never knew would break the new law and cost you every that you and your family own? No you would stay home. Then how long until they come after bloggers like me? Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, except attending and organizing are 2 different things. This will not keep me from attending, though my choices have been made, since 2001, on if/how many armed nuts could be present. However, it will chill me in planning some sort of formal event where anyone can come in and cause damage for which the planners can be found liable.
As you said, there is still more to a final decision, which is what I was trying to say (but all my words! Too many; I’m sorry.) It’s just that I’d read that one piece earlier, and this had a sensational headline, which does an even better job of chilling dissent. It isn’t you, it’s media who choose how to present what little they bother finding out, and I wanted to quell some concern. Not all concern, though ever since GW made things harder for organizers and attendees alike to show dissent, this only changes the one thing, which is holding the wrong people responsible for others’s bad acts. Land of the free, home of the brave.
LikeLiked by 1 person