First you link to the wrong god damned instance of this case at SCOTUSBLOG (McKesson v Doe 2 instead of McKesson v Doe 3) you then don’t link, or you know just post, Justice Sotomayor’s remarks about why SCOTUS didn’t hear this case for the third time.
Of course you probably chose not to link, or state, her full remarks because if you HAD then you wouldn’t have been able to write that inflammatory headline.
SCOTUS already resolved this in 2023 with Counterman v. Colorado. It’s right there on pages 14/15 in the linked PDF.
Modern Media is a raging dumpster fire of inflammatory bullshit.
Edit: In case it’s not clear this Vox article was carefully crafted to leave the reader ignorant and outraged.
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.
If I’m reading this right, 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.” That basically right?
Oh FFS. I just read Sotomayor’s statement, and the Vox article is just a flat out lie (and apparently nobody else in the comments bothered to fact check it). You’re doing God’s work, Buelldozer.
Looks like the standard has already been re-affirmed in other cases as incitement (knowing and intentional words to imminently cause lawless action) in order for a lawsuit to succeed.
The Louisiana Supreme Court did find that first responders (police, fire,EMT, etc) are indeed allowed to sue. There was some question of if they were disqualified from suing under the theory that getting attacked in a riot is just a job hazard for them. Vox might have taken offense to that for some reason.
This is all civil too, so no jail time or charges, just a legal fight about standards for culpability for the purposes of a civil case.
Its 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.”
I was pleasantly surprised to see this top comment digging into the case. I was very confused by the SCOTUSBLOG link and dug around on my own wondering why everything was from 2020 at first, then going back to the article and feeling like it was really off the rails.
C’mon Vox…this article is straight garbage.
First you link to the wrong god damned instance of this case at SCOTUSBLOG (McKesson v Doe 2 instead of McKesson v Doe 3) you then don’t link, or you know just post, Justice Sotomayor’s remarks about why SCOTUS didn’t hear this case for the third time.
Of course you probably chose not to link, or state, her full remarks because if you HAD then you wouldn’t have been able to write that inflammatory headline.
SCOTUS already resolved this in 2023 with Counterman v. Colorado. It’s right there on pages 14/15 in the linked PDF.
Modern Media is a raging dumpster fire of inflammatory bullshit.
Edit: In case it’s not clear this Vox article was carefully crafted to leave the reader ignorant and outraged.
From the remarks:
…
If I’m reading this right, 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.” That basically right?
Yep, you got it!
Yeah, so, that’s a nothingburger. Thanks for calling out Vox.
That’s my reading too.
Oh FFS. I just read Sotomayor’s statement, and the Vox article is just a flat out lie (and apparently nobody else in the comments bothered to fact check it). You’re doing God’s work, Buelldozer.
Rage bait
It’s what makes the enshitified internet continue to coerce engagement from it’s viewers
Would you mind explaining what the actual takeaway should be? My media literacy isn’t great
Looks like the standard has already been re-affirmed in other cases as incitement (knowing and intentional words to imminently cause lawless action) in order for a lawsuit to succeed.
The Louisiana Supreme Court did find that first responders (police, fire,EMT, etc) are indeed allowed to sue. There was some question of if they were disqualified from suing under the theory that getting attacked in a riot is just a job hazard for them. Vox might have taken offense to that for some reason.
This is all civil too, so no jail time or charges, just a legal fight about standards for culpability for the purposes of a civil case.
Its 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.”
I was pleasantly surprised to see this top comment digging into the case. I was very confused by the SCOTUSBLOG link and dug around on my own wondering why everything was from 2020 at first, then going back to the article and feeling like it was really off the rails.