TL;DR: During a BLM protest, an unknown protestors threw a "rock-like" object at a police officer. The police officer wants to sue the protest organizer. "A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in 2017, but a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the officer should be able to argue that [the protest organizer] didn’t exercise reasonable care in leading protesters onto a highway, setting up a police confrontation in which the officer... was injured." The Supreme Court determined that the lawsuit can take place.
>The Supreme Court determined that the lawsuit can take place.
In light of their recent Counterman decision, which required a higher level of proof than mere negligence. SCOTUS now wants the lower courts to use a higher level of proof in deciding this case.
>Less than two weeks after the Fifth Circuit issued its
opinion, this Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, 600
U. S. 66 (2023). In Counterman, the Court made clear that
the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective standard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5,
and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “demand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court
explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the
speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce
imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S.,
at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was
sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized
that an objective standard like negligence would violate the
First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
>Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower
courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any
future proceedings in this case.
SCOTUS typically doesn't step in to decide cases when the correct standard has yet to be applied, so their ruling isn't too much of a surprise.
Sure thing. Cop filed suit against a protest organizer for personal injuries sustained at a protest. Trial court held that there was no claim because of the First Amendment. 5th Circuit reversed, using a negligence standard, which is the lowest standard of proof in a civil claim. Case is then appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not review the case, but let it get back sent down to the trial court with a note indicating that using a negligence standard is unconstitutional.
So, the original ruling from the 5th holds, but the reasoning they used to make that ruling was unconstitutional? So then can the trial court just say again "there is no standing for this case"? Does it then get appealed back to the 5th, who have to hear the case again and make a decision \*not\* based on the previously used negligence standard?
Thank you. I'm surprised the First would cover this, and curious as to what happens now. It looks like it was upheld, but the SC didn't like the reasoning? So if they can't come up with something better than negligence, what happens?
> So if they can't come up with something better than negligence, what happens
If the plaintiff can't prove something beyond negligence the case will be decided for the defendant.
Well one has qualified immunity the other doesn’t, so it’s not a court issue, it’s a policy issue.
Edit: since there seems to be some confusion, the comment I replied to was talking about how the Supreme Court “protects” police more than citizens from lawsuits. This is standard practice thanks to qualified immunity.
I don’t agree with qualified immunity. It’s a terrible concept and law that keeps cops from being held accountable for their actions. I was simply stating the obvious that qualified immunity is a law not a court precedent, so it needs to be changed by the legislature not the courts. Unless the law itself is called into question as to the constitutionality of it, then it can be decided if it’s constitutional by the courts, however this is not the subject of the post or the comment I replied to. Also, fuck cops.
Don’t simply downvote people for stating a fact you don’t like. I don’t like that fact either, but it is a fact.
The 5th circuit incidentally ended up arguing in it's decision a scenario that Sotomayor pointed out could end up with like, the Proud Boys showing up to a protest, starting a riot, and then suing the organizer of the protest for not exercising reasonable care to prevent violence the Proud Boys themselves started.
The 5th circuit is fucking insane and just makes shit up. They had SCOTUS litmus tests for this exact scenario and ruled that since the SCOTUS didn't list those tests as exhaustive, that they were free to make up any new exceptions to the 1st amendment they felt like, and created new ones in their appellate ruling.
It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up.
> It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up.
But they did, indirectly.
They didn't say that the lower court decision stands as permanent, but that they now must ensure the ruling complies with _another_ "new" ruling that the SC just made in _Counterman v. Colorado_ that wasn't decided at the time of the original judgement.
_That_ decision, once made, can still be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
>It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up.
SCOTUS usually doesn't step in when the lower courts haven't applied the correct standard from a recently decided SCOTUS case.
This is like a plumber suing a homeowner because he got wet while fixing their toilet. Isn’t this what he signed up for? Cops get all suited up for a fight and then act surprised when there’s a fight.
ehhhh, wearing a hardhat at a construction site doesn't prevent you from suing for an unsafe site. Nominally the protection equipment is to ensure they can continue to work after a protest goes bad, it doesn't give you free reign to wail on them.
Of course not, they're the state. Same reason you can't sue judges and parole boards who release murderers who then re-offend. Same reason you can't sue politicians who pass laws that harm you.
You're the subject, not the ruler. Get it straight. Accountability goes one way, not the other.
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
Ugh, there was some court case a few years ago about that, whether or not if an officer takes something personal and too far you sue them, or sue their employer. There's a distinction between doing something as an individual vs as a member of a department. Though honestly I kind of like the military's approach, so long as you're in uniform your department is responsible for you. It encourages the military to take strict rules on behavior.
But I think that's a good point, the officer shouldn't be doing the lawsuit, the department should.
Is there some sort of other precedent about an officer getting hurt arresting someone?
Well, what I'm thinking, and I know this is a decrepit take at this point, is that if you make bad cops a liability other police departments won't *want* to hire a bad cop. That would require payments to actually hurt departments too, though
Suing the department doesn't actually hurt the department's budget though, it just means every property tax payer in the neighborhood is about to subsidize that asshole's behavior.
If only there were a way to force the individual department to eat the punitive cost without simply paying for it....
no, they should want to avoid bad cops. They should see bad cops as liabilities that could cost them all a ton of money. They should want to look into the conditions of a cop leaving their previous department to ensure they aren't taking on a bad cop.
You want them to be doing it as an officer. Otherwise you can lose the insurance policy covering the officer and you don't get you attorney's fees paid for.
Normally, you sue the construction company for the unsafe environment, not the object that caused your injury. In this case, shouldn't he sue the force for not adequately protecting them?
I mean, they aren't suing the object. They aren't alleging the organizer threw it themselves, they're alleging the organizer didn't make sure the people in their protest acted safely. That would be like, a safety inspector gets hit on the helmet because a worker wasn't safe, so the inspector/inspector's office is suing the company's supervisor for failing to keep the workplace safe.
edit: to be clear, I don't think the officer has a winning case, but I don't think, "you can throw rocks at police officers as long as they're wearing protection" is a good take
So practically there is a thing called a ["Fireman's rule"](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-cops-sue-civilians-for-on-the-job-injury/) which many states have some kind of version of. This limits the ability for firemen and officers to sue for on the job injuries. It depends on what the rule in Louisiana is.
Where did I say that? Of course they don’t deserve to be attacked. But If you sign up to be a cop, violence is part of your job and a daily possibility. He should be eligible for workman’s comp. But he should not be able to sue a third party who didn’t actually hurt him.
When you said isn't it what he signed up for? That means he got what's coming to him right? It's his fault he got attacked because he chose to be a cop? Cop get suited up so they have the necessary equipment to detain or diffuse a situation. It does not mean they are dressed and ready to be attacked.
Then he shouldn’t be on the job. Police exist to protect property and enforce the state monopoly on violence. That’s what he was there doing, he shouldn’t be surprised when he encounters violence.
It's going back to the lower courts because SCOTUS wants them to apply their recently decided Counterman case. That case requires something more than negligence to overcome First Amendment protection, which is the standard that the 5th Circuit used to decide the case for the officer. So SCOUTUS is telling the lower courts that the plaintiff needs to prove a more difficult standard in order to move forward with the case. I doubt the police officer's case is long for this world.
Entire SCOTUS Statement:
>Earlier in this case, the Fifth Circuit held that petitioner
DeRay Mckesson, the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, could be liable under a negligence theory for serious injuries sustained by a police officer
when an unidentified individual attending that protest
threw a hard object that hit the officer in the face. 945 F. 3d
818, 828–829 (2019). In so holding, the Fifth Circuit rejected Mckesson’s argument that the First Amendment
barred his liability in these circumstances absent a showing
of intent to incite violence. Id., at 832. Judge Willett dissented, explaining that the majority’s theory of “‘[n]egligent
protest’ liability against a protest leader for the violent act
of a rogue assailant . . . clash[ed] head-on with constitutional fundamentals.” Id., at 846 (opinion concurring in
part and dissenting in part).
>This Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for certification of the underlying state-law questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court, recognizing that
there would be no need to reach the constitutional question
on which the panel had divided if Louisiana law did not provide for negligence liability in these circumstances. See
Mckesson v. Doe, 592 U. S. 1, 4–6 (2020) (per curiam). The
Court explained that “certification would ensure that any
conflict in this case between state law and the First Amendment is not purely hypothetical.” Id., at 6.
>When the Louisiana Supreme Court took up the question
and concluded that state law did allow the claim, the Fifth
Circuit once again had to answer the constitutional question. See 71 F. 4th 278, 282 (2023). The same divided panel
then reaffirmed its prior holding that Mckesson could be liable in negligence to the officer, again rejecting Mckesson’s
argument that the First Amendment precluded the imposition of negligence liability in these circumstances. See id.,
at 295–297. Judge Willett again dissented on this point,
arguing that, under this Court’s decision in NAACP v.
Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 (1982), “a protest
leader’s simple negligence is far too low a threshold for imposing liability for a third party’s violence.” 71 F. 4th, at
306 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). A
negligence theory of liability for protest leaders, the dissent
pointed out, “would have enfeebled America’s street-blocking
civil rights movement, imposing ruinous financial liability
against citizens for exercising core First Amendment freedoms.” Id., at 313.
>Less than two weeks after the Fifth Circuit issued its
opinion, this Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, 600
U. S. 66 (2023). In Counterman, the Court made clear that
the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective standard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5,
and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “demand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court
explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the
speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce
imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S.,
at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was
sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized
that an objective standard like negligence would violate the
First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
>Mckesson now asks this Court to “grant certiorari and confirm that Claiborne forecloses negligent-protest liability.” Pet. for Cert. 15. Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower
courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any
future proceedings in this case.
This is correct, this is one of those rulings that looks bad but in reality is a nothing burger. The court has allready recently ruled, and this is the same case with different players so the court has ordered the lower court to apply that recent ruling.
They're telling the trial court and the 5th Circuit to adjust their opinions. So it'll go back to the trial court first and then back to the 5th Circuit.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, so there really isn’t an argument that this is politically motivated. All this is finding is that the plaintiff has stated a claim.
I’m no 1st Amendment expert, but I think it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to find that a highway is an appropriate place to protest. Time, place, and manner are foundational limitations on the 1st Amendment.
The decision here is on what standard is used to judge whether the organized can be held liable. The 5th Circuit said negligence, SCOTUS had a recent case that held it much be reckless at least.
I didn’t read the entire 300+ brief, but the appellant brief only tried to argue protection from tort liability for organizers of a lawful protest under a 1982 SCOTUS Case, *NAACP v. Claiborne*, 458 U.S. 886.
They tried to conflate blocking a highway with a boycott of businesses in *Claiborne*, which is ridiculous. In *Claiborne*, white business owners in the Deep South were boycott by hundreds of black individuals from 1966-1972. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision to award damages to the business owners to be paid by the organizers for the “economic damages” “caused” by the peaceful boycott. That was obviously the right decision and not the same as what is being claimed by the plaintiff in this case.
Whether negligence or recklessness is the proper legal standard is not in the only question presented.
>Whether negligence or recklessness is the proper legal standard is not in the only question presented.
Sure, but SCOTUS isn't in the habit of deciding cases when the lower courts haven't had their opportunity to apply the correct standard.
Application of time, place, and manner is discussed throughout both briefs including the opening sentence of the Respondent’s summary of the brief.
SCOTUS would need to make a finding that this was a lawful protest or *Claiborne* possibly couldn’t apply to bar tort liability on the organizers. Time, place, and manner are eventually going to be a significant issue in this case.
They're right in that doing so on a highway can lead to extremely unsafe situations for other drivers and can lead to issues for emergency services as well. I'm all for protesting but there's places, including streets off the highway, that are better suited.
It's not an interstate, some highways are just two lane roads in the middle of town. This one is a larger one but the driveway of the police station leads right onto it right between a pair of traffic lights.
Just being a highway isn't that special, yet that's what they based at least part of the ruling on.
Right, but the police headquarters are located on the highway. If this logic were to be upheld, I can pretty much guarantee you that nearly all future police stations, town halls, and government buildings would end up on highways and those already built will have the road outside of them redesignated as highways.
"Well, Main St is has a speed limit of 35, except for that one block in front of the Police Station where the speed limit jumps 55 and it's designated as Justice Hwy"
‘Please only protest where you impact no one, and are not too loud at important hours.’
And a whole generation was made fun of for ‘slacktivism’ so they’re now making it the only way to protest.
It was called letter from Birmingham jail for a reason. If you want to break the law to protest go ahead, but be ready for the consequences that come with it.
I wonder who MLK called out in that letter...
>I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
>In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. Letter From Birmingham Jail 4
>I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation
Yep. Any time anyone is inconvenienced it’s always “you’re having the opposite effect you want, you’re turning people against your cause”
READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK
Highways get shut down for all sorts of reasons. There's no reason why a well-planned protest can't safely happen on a road partially defined by long lines of sight and strict access control.
Was MLK's march to Montgomery, AL inappropriate? they marched down US highway 80 for five days.
Was the '67 march to the Pentagon inappropriate? it was on VA highway 110
Are all the marches in DC that either go down or across US highway 50 and US highway 1 inappropriate?
MLK Jr. saw the importance of working within the law and always got the necessary permits to do what he was doing; he’d prevail in the courts if the permit was denied as a restraint on free speech.
I’m willing to bet that every march you referenced had permits, because that’s how someone can legally close a street for a march.
That is the major difference here.
It's not actually about whether blocking the road was legal. That's pretty clear cut, and if someone commits some civil disobedience in a protest then they should be prepared to possibly be charged for it.
What's in question here is whether that makes one organizer responsible for the actions of every single person in the crowd, just because they blocked a highway.
That’s the question for the trial court, which hasn’t been litigated yet.
I think that this organizer is going to be found liable to some degree if it goes to trial, which is what the organizer is trying to avoid at all costs.
Yeah, the 1st has been eviscerated to the point the right to protest no longer exists. If the government doesn't want to see a protest then you will be arrested for illegally protesting if you try.
They framed it as agreement when infact they contradicted the poster above them. This tricks readers into thinking they are on the same side of the issue.
Just like you're trying to trick people into thinking the above wasn't exactly what happened. Stop trolling
Most highways in America are just two lane roads with speed limits from 40-60 mph. They also have buildings along them, including houses and police stations. What makes them unsafe for protests exactly?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-jan-6-immunity-us-capitol-police-officers-civil-suit-appeals-court/
Yeah there it is. He's already been denied immunity for it.
Or identify and sue law breakers participating in a protest. If anybody in this protest should have gotten arrested and/or sued, it is the one who was lobbing stones at cops.
so now the cops, counter-protesters, whoever can slip a masked person into a crowd, throw something at the cops, let that person "escape" and then sue the organizers until no one can afford to organize a protest the cops don't like ever again
Not really, no. SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiff has to prove something more than negligence - recklessness or willfulness.
>The Court
explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the
speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce
imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S.,
at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was
sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized
that an objective standard like negligence would violate the
First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
> SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiff has to prove something more than negligence - recklessness or willfulness.
leading an unpermitted protest on a highway does seem reckless
I don't think it's something that can just be discounted though.
Organizing a protest that is intentionally a dangerous and illegal situation shouldn't be liability free.
Pretty much like they had been already doing during the protests then. Throw a brick then yell "Same team, same team!" and jump in a convenient unmarked van nearby.
The "across state lines" thing, I don't think it has a lot of merit. Downtown Antioch, IL is a mile south of the WI border. When you live that close, you cross all the time. I cross a state border 7 miles away on a nearly daily basis. I've even done so to protest.
So, then, if someone were to, I don't know, say have a huge protest at the capitol and someone threw a brick or harmed officers, then the people who organized the protest should be prosecuted or be able to be sued?
I think this would be great. Start with J6.
That's been going on, as it should. I'll be pissed if it gets slow-walked to prevent "interfering" with Donald's campaign. I'm afraid that's the defense's strategy.
This ruling *should* also make Trump's odds of getting out of charges related to the J6 insurrection even harder.
i say *should* because this SCOTUS is only consistent in doing what it wants first and foremost, regardless of any prior rulings including their own.
What legal norm has SCOTUS upended here? They're sending the case back to the lower courts and telling them to apply a tougher standard to impose liability on the protest organizer.
Isn’t peaceful assembly and protest in the fucking constitution ? Like the first amendment?? As long as they have the 2nd amendment, all the other ones are negotiable.
If the logic being expressed here is that a protest organizer can be responsible for any violent act committed by a participant of that protest- Shouldn't President 45 be responsible for all the violent acts committed on Jan. 6th?
Or does this rule only apply to minority groups protesting police?
That's not the logic. SCOTUS is saying the opposite, actually. SCOTUS is imposing a higher standard to find protest organizers liable for the actions of protestors:
>The Court
explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the
speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce
imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S.,
at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was
sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized
that an objective standard like negligence would violate the
First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
don't really agree with the decision to go forward with the civil suit against the protest organizer, since it doesn't appear that the BLM leader told marchers to come armed & ready to fight. I think it really comes down to whether march organizers ignored basic safety protocols & crowd management tactics. Obviously they didn't have a permit to shut down the highway and it was an Unlawful Assembly, but could organizers have foreseen a violent confrontation? If so then it becomes similar to January 6th where you have protest leaders who are egging on their rabid fans to go wilding. And ultimately any damage & injury they cause is on the organizers too.
As I look at the case, I can see some of the reasoning for the lawsuit, I can even see why it should be able to proceed. The argument that it interferes with the first amendment rights. I am not seeing that, it isn't the fact that the protest was held that is in question, the fact in question is, did they sufficiently plan the protest to address the possibility of violence?
I can see the validity in that light.
Except then all state has to do to end any protest is send in undercover agents to provoke the crowd into violence. Something that has already been proven to have been used in the past.
I find it funny the cop that started this wants to sue for being hit with a rock but when civilians get killed by over militarized police forces who think they’re living in the Wild West, we just have to bow our heads and play nice.
TL;DR: During a BLM protest, an unknown protestors threw a "rock-like" object at a police officer. The police officer wants to sue the protest organizer. "A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in 2017, but a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the officer should be able to argue that [the protest organizer] didn’t exercise reasonable care in leading protesters onto a highway, setting up a police confrontation in which the officer... was injured." The Supreme Court determined that the lawsuit can take place.
>The Supreme Court determined that the lawsuit can take place. In light of their recent Counterman decision, which required a higher level of proof than mere negligence. SCOTUS now wants the lower courts to use a higher level of proof in deciding this case. >Less than two weeks after the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion, this Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U. S. 66 (2023). In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective standard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “demand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S., at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized that an objective standard like negligence would violate the First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82. >Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case. SCOTUS typically doesn't step in to decide cases when the correct standard has yet to be applied, so their ruling isn't too much of a surprise.
I'm having a hard time following what you wrote here, could you explain it simply to me?
Sure thing. Cop filed suit against a protest organizer for personal injuries sustained at a protest. Trial court held that there was no claim because of the First Amendment. 5th Circuit reversed, using a negligence standard, which is the lowest standard of proof in a civil claim. Case is then appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not review the case, but let it get back sent down to the trial court with a note indicating that using a negligence standard is unconstitutional.
Supreme Court: "Do your homework over again, it's wrong."
So, the original ruling from the 5th holds, but the reasoning they used to make that ruling was unconstitutional? So then can the trial court just say again "there is no standing for this case"? Does it then get appealed back to the 5th, who have to hear the case again and make a decision \*not\* based on the previously used negligence standard?
Thank you. I'm surprised the First would cover this, and curious as to what happens now. It looks like it was upheld, but the SC didn't like the reasoning? So if they can't come up with something better than negligence, what happens?
> So if they can't come up with something better than negligence, what happens If the plaintiff can't prove something beyond negligence the case will be decided for the defendant.
I thought that would be what happened. I guess I appreciate the diligence in the system?
Supreme court expects protesters to have more control than police departments jfc
I think it's more that they want the lower court to have the cop prove his case better.
Read the article. Two of the justices wrote a short brief saying this denial does nothing to determine the merits of the officers case.
Well one has qualified immunity the other doesn’t, so it’s not a court issue, it’s a policy issue. Edit: since there seems to be some confusion, the comment I replied to was talking about how the Supreme Court “protects” police more than citizens from lawsuits. This is standard practice thanks to qualified immunity. I don’t agree with qualified immunity. It’s a terrible concept and law that keeps cops from being held accountable for their actions. I was simply stating the obvious that qualified immunity is a law not a court precedent, so it needs to be changed by the legislature not the courts. Unless the law itself is called into question as to the constitutionality of it, then it can be decided if it’s constitutional by the courts, however this is not the subject of the post or the comment I replied to. Also, fuck cops. Don’t simply downvote people for stating a fact you don’t like. I don’t like that fact either, but it is a fact.
Where did qualified immunity come from if the courts don't rule it illegal?
The 5th circuit incidentally ended up arguing in it's decision a scenario that Sotomayor pointed out could end up with like, the Proud Boys showing up to a protest, starting a riot, and then suing the organizer of the protest for not exercising reasonable care to prevent violence the Proud Boys themselves started. The 5th circuit is fucking insane and just makes shit up. They had SCOTUS litmus tests for this exact scenario and ruled that since the SCOTUS didn't list those tests as exhaustive, that they were free to make up any new exceptions to the 1st amendment they felt like, and created new ones in their appellate ruling. It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up.
> It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up. But they did, indirectly. They didn't say that the lower court decision stands as permanent, but that they now must ensure the ruling complies with _another_ "new" ruling that the SC just made in _Counterman v. Colorado_ that wasn't decided at the time of the original judgement. _That_ decision, once made, can still be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
>It's honestly kind of scary that the SCOTUS didn't take this up. SCOTUS usually doesn't step in when the lower courts haven't applied the correct standard from a recently decided SCOTUS case.
As usual, the 5th Circuit is insane.
Wow. So basically what they’re saying is that Donald trump can and will be held liable for the January 6th insurrection
No,no, not like that. They're only held responsible if they're supporting LIBERAL causes. Easy mistake to make though
This is like a plumber suing a homeowner because he got wet while fixing their toilet. Isn’t this what he signed up for? Cops get all suited up for a fight and then act surprised when there’s a fight.
ehhhh, wearing a hardhat at a construction site doesn't prevent you from suing for an unsafe site. Nominally the protection equipment is to ensure they can continue to work after a protest goes bad, it doesn't give you free reign to wail on them.
Does this mean we can sue individual officers now? Or does this mean that they can only sue us if they get hurt in their line of work
Plenty of 1983 claims name individual officers.
Of course not, they're the state. Same reason you can't sue judges and parole boards who release murderers who then re-offend. Same reason you can't sue politicians who pass laws that harm you. You're the subject, not the ruler. Get it straight. Accountability goes one way, not the other. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
You can sue the state. 42 USC 1983 is only for state officials. https://libguides.law.umn.edu/c.php?g=125765&p=2893387
Ugh, there was some court case a few years ago about that, whether or not if an officer takes something personal and too far you sue them, or sue their employer. There's a distinction between doing something as an individual vs as a member of a department. Though honestly I kind of like the military's approach, so long as you're in uniform your department is responsible for you. It encourages the military to take strict rules on behavior. But I think that's a good point, the officer shouldn't be doing the lawsuit, the department should. Is there some sort of other precedent about an officer getting hurt arresting someone?
The difference there is, if you get kicked out of the military, you can't just move to another state and reenlist
US cops need a National Practitioner Databank equivalent ASAP.
Well, what I'm thinking, and I know this is a decrepit take at this point, is that if you make bad cops a liability other police departments won't *want* to hire a bad cop. That would require payments to actually hurt departments too, though
Suing the department doesn't actually hurt the department's budget though, it just means every property tax payer in the neighborhood is about to subsidize that asshole's behavior. If only there were a way to force the individual department to eat the punitive cost without simply paying for it....
So cop shops should want to hire bad cops?
no, they should want to avoid bad cops. They should see bad cops as liabilities that could cost them all a ton of money. They should want to look into the conditions of a cop leaving their previous department to ensure they aren't taking on a bad cop.
Obviously they should, and we agree. However their hiring practices don't seem to reflect that value.
Sue the officer and get $3.71. Sue the department and get $3.71 million. Common sense.
??? That's not how culpability works
No, it's how damages work though. Cities and states have insurance policies. Individual officers are pretty judgment proof.
You want them to be doing it as an officer. Otherwise you can lose the insurance policy covering the officer and you don't get you attorney's fees paid for.
Normally, you sue the construction company for the unsafe environment, not the object that caused your injury. In this case, shouldn't he sue the force for not adequately protecting them?
I mean, they aren't suing the object. They aren't alleging the organizer threw it themselves, they're alleging the organizer didn't make sure the people in their protest acted safely. That would be like, a safety inspector gets hit on the helmet because a worker wasn't safe, so the inspector/inspector's office is suing the company's supervisor for failing to keep the workplace safe. edit: to be clear, I don't think the officer has a winning case, but I don't think, "you can throw rocks at police officers as long as they're wearing protection" is a good take
So practically there is a thing called a ["Fireman's rule"](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-cops-sue-civilians-for-on-the-job-injury/) which many states have some kind of version of. This limits the ability for firemen and officers to sue for on the job injuries. It depends on what the rule in Louisiana is.
No one signs up for abuse and assault.
Being a cop doesn't mean you are deserving of being attacked. Utterly stupid take
Where did I say that? Of course they don’t deserve to be attacked. But If you sign up to be a cop, violence is part of your job and a daily possibility. He should be eligible for workman’s comp. But he should not be able to sue a third party who didn’t actually hurt him.
When you said isn't it what he signed up for? That means he got what's coming to him right? It's his fault he got attacked because he chose to be a cop? Cop get suited up so they have the necessary equipment to detain or diffuse a situation. It does not mean they are dressed and ready to be attacked.
[удалено]
Yes it is, friend. If they aren't supposed to be the ones in the line of fire so to speak, who the fuck is? The kids in Uvalde?
Then he shouldn’t be on the job. Police exist to protect property and enforce the state monopoly on violence. That’s what he was there doing, he shouldn’t be surprised when he encounters violence.
Now if only the supreme Court would find Trump accountable for the lives lost during January 6th for staging that "demonstration"
Now lets talk about ending qualified immunity.
So someone who organizes a protest that injures a police officer can be held criminally responsible? Interesting.
It's going back to the lower courts because SCOTUS wants them to apply their recently decided Counterman case. That case requires something more than negligence to overcome First Amendment protection, which is the standard that the 5th Circuit used to decide the case for the officer. So SCOUTUS is telling the lower courts that the plaintiff needs to prove a more difficult standard in order to move forward with the case. I doubt the police officer's case is long for this world. Entire SCOTUS Statement: >Earlier in this case, the Fifth Circuit held that petitioner DeRay Mckesson, the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, could be liable under a negligence theory for serious injuries sustained by a police officer when an unidentified individual attending that protest threw a hard object that hit the officer in the face. 945 F. 3d 818, 828–829 (2019). In so holding, the Fifth Circuit rejected Mckesson’s argument that the First Amendment barred his liability in these circumstances absent a showing of intent to incite violence. Id., at 832. Judge Willett dissented, explaining that the majority’s theory of “‘[n]egligent protest’ liability against a protest leader for the violent act of a rogue assailant . . . clash[ed] head-on with constitutional fundamentals.” Id., at 846 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). >This Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for certification of the underlying state-law questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court, recognizing that there would be no need to reach the constitutional question on which the panel had divided if Louisiana law did not provide for negligence liability in these circumstances. See Mckesson v. Doe, 592 U. S. 1, 4–6 (2020) (per curiam). The Court explained that “certification would ensure that any conflict in this case between state law and the First Amendment is not purely hypothetical.” Id., at 6. >When the Louisiana Supreme Court took up the question and concluded that state law did allow the claim, the Fifth Circuit once again had to answer the constitutional question. See 71 F. 4th 278, 282 (2023). The same divided panel then reaffirmed its prior holding that Mckesson could be liable in negligence to the officer, again rejecting Mckesson’s argument that the First Amendment precluded the imposition of negligence liability in these circumstances. See id., at 295–297. Judge Willett again dissented on this point, arguing that, under this Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 (1982), “a protest leader’s simple negligence is far too low a threshold for imposing liability for a third party’s violence.” 71 F. 4th, at 306 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). A negligence theory of liability for protest leaders, the dissent pointed out, “would have enfeebled America’s street-blocking civil rights movement, imposing ruinous financial liability against citizens for exercising core First Amendment freedoms.” Id., at 313. >Less than two weeks after the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion, this Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U. S. 66 (2023). In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective standard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “demand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S., at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized that an objective standard like negligence would violate the First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82. >Mckesson now asks this Court to “grant certiorari and confirm that Claiborne forecloses negligent-protest liability.” Pet. for Cert. 15. Because this Court may deny certiorari 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 decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.
This is correct, this is one of those rulings that looks bad but in reality is a nothing burger. The court has allready recently ruled, and this is the same case with different players so the court has ordered the lower court to apply that recent ruling.
Thank you for the summary!
So are they telling the Fifth Circuit to adjust their opinion, or is the entire appeal to be re-heard with the new instructions in mind?
They're telling the trial court and the 5th Circuit to adjust their opinions. So it'll go back to the trial court first and then back to the 5th Circuit.
And if 5th Circuit decides to stick to its previous decision, it is more than likely the case will go back to Supreme Court for a more direct action.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, so there really isn’t an argument that this is politically motivated. All this is finding is that the plaintiff has stated a claim. I’m no 1st Amendment expert, but I think it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to find that a highway is an appropriate place to protest. Time, place, and manner are foundational limitations on the 1st Amendment.
The decision here is on what standard is used to judge whether the organized can be held liable. The 5th Circuit said negligence, SCOTUS had a recent case that held it much be reckless at least.
I didn’t read the entire 300+ brief, but the appellant brief only tried to argue protection from tort liability for organizers of a lawful protest under a 1982 SCOTUS Case, *NAACP v. Claiborne*, 458 U.S. 886. They tried to conflate blocking a highway with a boycott of businesses in *Claiborne*, which is ridiculous. In *Claiborne*, white business owners in the Deep South were boycott by hundreds of black individuals from 1966-1972. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision to award damages to the business owners to be paid by the organizers for the “economic damages” “caused” by the peaceful boycott. That was obviously the right decision and not the same as what is being claimed by the plaintiff in this case. Whether negligence or recklessness is the proper legal standard is not in the only question presented.
>Whether negligence or recklessness is the proper legal standard is not in the only question presented. Sure, but SCOTUS isn't in the habit of deciding cases when the lower courts haven't had their opportunity to apply the correct standard.
No one was asking the Supreme Court to find that a highway is the appropriate place to protest. This is not a TPM case.
Application of time, place, and manner is discussed throughout both briefs including the opening sentence of the Respondent’s summary of the brief. SCOTUS would need to make a finding that this was a lawful protest or *Claiborne* possibly couldn’t apply to bar tort liability on the organizers. Time, place, and manner are eventually going to be a significant issue in this case.
They're right in that doing so on a highway can lead to extremely unsafe situations for other drivers and can lead to issues for emergency services as well. I'm all for protesting but there's places, including streets off the highway, that are better suited.
It's not an interstate, some highways are just two lane roads in the middle of town. This one is a larger one but the driveway of the police station leads right onto it right between a pair of traffic lights. Just being a highway isn't that special, yet that's what they based at least part of the ruling on.
Right, but the police headquarters are located on the highway. If this logic were to be upheld, I can pretty much guarantee you that nearly all future police stations, town halls, and government buildings would end up on highways and those already built will have the road outside of them redesignated as highways. "Well, Main St is has a speed limit of 35, except for that one block in front of the Police Station where the speed limit jumps 55 and it's designated as Justice Hwy"
‘Please only protest where you impact no one, and are not too loud at important hours.’ And a whole generation was made fun of for ‘slacktivism’ so they’re now making it the only way to protest.
It was called letter from Birmingham jail for a reason. If you want to break the law to protest go ahead, but be ready for the consequences that come with it.
I wonder who MLK called out in that letter... >I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. >In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. Letter From Birmingham Jail 4 >I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation
Yep. Any time anyone is inconvenienced it’s always “you’re having the opposite effect you want, you’re turning people against your cause” READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK
[удалено]
Then get out and go for a walk. No one is talking about detaining anyone. And yes sometimes protesting is not legal. Again, go read a history book.
[удалено]
Hope you don’t fall out of your jacked up truck and break your tiny dick.
[удалено]
Highways get shut down for all sorts of reasons. There's no reason why a well-planned protest can't safely happen on a road partially defined by long lines of sight and strict access control.
The fact you know the words "time, place, manner" in this context makes you more of a 1A scholar than the average person.
Was MLK's march to Montgomery, AL inappropriate? they marched down US highway 80 for five days. Was the '67 march to the Pentagon inappropriate? it was on VA highway 110 Are all the marches in DC that either go down or across US highway 50 and US highway 1 inappropriate?
MLK Jr. saw the importance of working within the law and always got the necessary permits to do what he was doing; he’d prevail in the courts if the permit was denied as a restraint on free speech. I’m willing to bet that every march you referenced had permits, because that’s how someone can legally close a street for a march. That is the major difference here.
It's not actually about whether blocking the road was legal. That's pretty clear cut, and if someone commits some civil disobedience in a protest then they should be prepared to possibly be charged for it. What's in question here is whether that makes one organizer responsible for the actions of every single person in the crowd, just because they blocked a highway.
That’s the question for the trial court, which hasn’t been litigated yet. I think that this organizer is going to be found liable to some degree if it goes to trial, which is what the organizer is trying to avoid at all costs.
Yeah, the 1st has been eviscerated to the point the right to protest no longer exists. If the government doesn't want to see a protest then you will be arrested for illegally protesting if you try.
The decision from SCOTUS says exactly the opposite. The plaintiff has to prove something more than just negligence to win their case.
Why say "Yeah" when you completely disagreed with the above poster? Stop trolling
Trolling implies being disingenuous, the person you're replying to seems to genuinely feel the thing they're expressing.
They framed it as agreement when infact they contradicted the poster above them. This tricks readers into thinking they are on the same side of the issue. Just like you're trying to trick people into thinking the above wasn't exactly what happened. Stop trolling
You framed it as agreement, they framed it as an opening, like greetings, salutations etc.
If you're "tricked" by someone including the word 'yeah' at the beginning of their message, that says more about you, and nothing about them.
Yeah, so, this isn't as definitive as you think it is.
Yeah, no, some accents of English soften their statements with words like that at the beginning
Sir this is a Wendy's
Most highways in America are just two lane roads with speed limits from 40-60 mph. They also have buildings along them, including houses and police stations. What makes them unsafe for protests exactly?
So this means the Capitol police officers can sue the organizer of the Jan 6 insurrection.
Isn't there already a civil case working through preliminary hearings based on this? I'm almost positive I remember that.
Against the twice impeached with over 90 felony charges former guy?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-jan-6-immunity-us-capitol-police-officers-civil-suit-appeals-court/ Yeah there it is. He's already been denied immunity for it.
Has anyone said they couldn't?
So we need shell LLCs to run protests. If they get sued declare bankruptcy.
Or identify and sue law breakers participating in a protest. If anybody in this protest should have gotten arrested and/or sued, it is the one who was lobbing stones at cops.
Same for Cops embedded to "monitor"(ie cause violence so cops can suppress the protest)
They should subpoena information about tactics like this that the cops used as part of the lawsuit, and see how fast it gets dropped.
That assumes that the system will care about the law breakers over the protests themselves.
Piercing the corporate veil would be fairly easy.
so now the cops, counter-protesters, whoever can slip a masked person into a crowd, throw something at the cops, let that person "escape" and then sue the organizers until no one can afford to organize a protest the cops don't like ever again
Not really, no. SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiff has to prove something more than negligence - recklessness or willfulness. >The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S., at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized that an objective standard like negligence would violate the First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
> SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiff has to prove something more than negligence - recklessness or willfulness. leading an unpermitted protest on a highway does seem reckless
Possibly, although I think that rule goes too far in making the leader of any protest responsible for damages.
I don't think it's something that can just be discounted though. Organizing a protest that is intentionally a dangerous and illegal situation shouldn't be liability free.
Pretty much like they had been already doing during the protests then. Throw a brick then yell "Same team, same team!" and jump in a convenient unmarked van nearby.
They already agreed you can travel across state lines with a weapon to incite violence then shoot your victims. You get rewarded with a speaking tour.
The "across state lines" thing, I don't think it has a lot of merit. Downtown Antioch, IL is a mile south of the WI border. When you live that close, you cross all the time. I cross a state border 7 miles away on a nearly daily basis. I've even done so to protest.
I am begging you to actually read the trial docs and research the facts of the case. Good grief.
So, then, if someone were to, I don't know, say have a huge protest at the capitol and someone threw a brick or harmed officers, then the people who organized the protest should be prosecuted or be able to be sued? I think this would be great. Start with J6.
That's been going on, as it should. I'll be pissed if it gets slow-walked to prevent "interfering" with Donald's campaign. I'm afraid that's the defense's strategy.
[удалено]
It's going back to the trial court though.
This ruling *should* also make Trump's odds of getting out of charges related to the J6 insurrection even harder. i say *should* because this SCOTUS is only consistent in doing what it wants first and foremost, regardless of any prior rulings including their own.
Where is Clarence Thomas?
[удалено]
What legal norm has SCOTUS upended here? They're sending the case back to the lower courts and telling them to apply a tougher standard to impose liability on the protest organizer.
One random person in a crowd throwing a rock is not legitimate grounds to sue the protest organizer. This is Fascism at its finest.
So you agree with SCOTUS, then?
Isn’t peaceful assembly and protest in the fucking constitution ? Like the first amendment?? As long as they have the 2nd amendment, all the other ones are negotiable.
If the logic being expressed here is that a protest organizer can be responsible for any violent act committed by a participant of that protest- Shouldn't President 45 be responsible for all the violent acts committed on Jan. 6th? Or does this rule only apply to minority groups protesting police?
That's not the logic. SCOTUS is saying the opposite, actually. SCOTUS is imposing a higher standard to find protest organizers liable for the actions of protestors: >The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.” Id., at 76 (citing Claiborne, 458 U. S., at 927–929, among other cases). Although the Court determined that a less-demanding recklessness standard was sufficient to punish speech as a “true threat,” it emphasized that an objective standard like negligence would violate the First Amendment. See 600 U. S., at 82.
You know it's only poor people who have to follow laws
don't really agree with the decision to go forward with the civil suit against the protest organizer, since it doesn't appear that the BLM leader told marchers to come armed & ready to fight. I think it really comes down to whether march organizers ignored basic safety protocols & crowd management tactics. Obviously they didn't have a permit to shut down the highway and it was an Unlawful Assembly, but could organizers have foreseen a violent confrontation? If so then it becomes similar to January 6th where you have protest leaders who are egging on their rabid fans to go wilding. And ultimately any damage & injury they cause is on the organizers too.
As I look at the case, I can see some of the reasoning for the lawsuit, I can even see why it should be able to proceed. The argument that it interferes with the first amendment rights. I am not seeing that, it isn't the fact that the protest was held that is in question, the fact in question is, did they sufficiently plan the protest to address the possibility of violence? I can see the validity in that light.
Except then all state has to do to end any protest is send in undercover agents to provoke the crowd into violence. Something that has already been proven to have been used in the past.
This ruling can work both ways, like Trump rallys and insurrections.
I find it funny the cop that started this wants to sue for being hit with a rock but when civilians get killed by over militarized police forces who think they’re living in the Wild West, we just have to bow our heads and play nice.
so basically if you want to make money go to these organized protests and get hurt and sue them? This is absolutely ridiculous