The US Supreme Court and its decisions

[Xaaron]

As I'm sure you know, what you're describing is tribalism. There ARE legally recognizable differences between Trump and McKesson's actions, but you openly don't care. Your stated philosophy is people you agree with should be allowed to break the law, and people whose cause you oppose should be punished. Donald Trump and the Republicans agree with you. I do not.

Donald Trump is a despicable human being with horrible intentions who refuses to play by the rules. You're willing to break the rules too in order to stop his intentions. I believe his intentions would be stopped if the rules were enforced appropriately. I suspect that debate will go unsolved long after we're both dead.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Why do I even bother showing trolls patience?

 

[MrBlud]

The ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly. The same way abortion restrictions do. Doctor’s aren’t sure where the line is so they just don’t do anything for fear of prosecution. This ruling assures the same thing with protests.

As for the difference between that and what Trump did. There are several, foremost among them is the fact Trump had legal authority to stop it (calling in the National Guard) yet did not. McKesson did not.

 

[Xaaron]

I would distinguish that the media coverage of the ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, not the ruling itself. That Vox article makes it sound like states have passed new, anti-protest laws in light of BLM to quash future dissent, but that isn't true. Yes, headlines like "Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest" or "It is no longer safe to organize a protest in..." are terrifying, but...wrong.

Again, this man has not been convicted of anything. No court has made any findings on the merits of the case. The law already on the books and ratified by the Supreme Court in 1982 states that this man could face liability, if he encouraged violent or unlawful activity during the protest he organized. The officer who brought the suit has been allowed the opportunity to prove the organizer is liable under the existing, 40 year old precedent.

Admittedly, I had to leave the news article, go read the original court documents, and apply my experience as an attorney to uncover that information. But I think that condemns the journalism here, not the courts, don't you?

 

[MrBlud]

Numerous states have passed laws allowing (if not encouraging) people to run down road based protestors. That is happening (G.O.P. Bills Target Protesters (and Absolve Motorists Who Hit Them) and was done directly in response to BLM protests.

The Vox article did an admirable job drawing out the real world history and implications of the ruling.