The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states

“The Supreme Court announced..that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South.

For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016.

The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock.

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.””

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24080080/supreme-court-mckesson-doe-first-amendment-protest-black-lives-matter

Israeli MIT students ‘terrified’ after anti-Israel rally chant calls for ‘one solution, intifada’

“Israeli students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) say they are “terrified” to be on campus after participants at a campus protest chanted “one solution, intifada, revolution” at a rally supporting the devastating Hamas terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis in Israel.
MIT students Liyam Chitayat and Lior Alon told Fox News Digital in interviews that after they contacted MIT’s administration to report the calls to violence being chanted from the protest and for concern for their own safety, they’ve yet to receive a substantial response.

Chitayat, a 19-year-old pursuing a Ph.D. on a prestigious scholarship and who previously served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), describes the rally cry as a call for the murder of Jews and the demolition of Israel.

“Intifada is not a call for resistance. Intifada is the name of acts of bombing and killing civilians in Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s the name of taking civilian lives in terrorist attacks in Israel. That is what intifada means. That is how it’s defined,” she said.”

“Alon argued that maybe 99% of the students calling for terrorism are just “stupid kids” who don’t know the weight that the phrase carries or what it means.

“But we only need one stupid person with a gun,” he said.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-mit-students-terrified-anti-080029984.html

Did the U.S. orchestrate the Color Revolutions!?

although the United States heavily funded pro-democracy organizations, and generally preferred the new governments and the attempted moves toward democracy, the United States did not direct these movements. Peoples in these countries had grievances and disagreements with their governments and pushed to replace them.
That said, these revolutions likely would not have succeeded without U.S. help. The U.S. spent money to help locals: build civil society, monitor elections, execute exit polling, and build independent media. The U.S. and the West also pressured the semi-authoritarian regimes to not suppress the protests. The United States encouraged democracy and built capacity that could be used to peacefully fight for democracy, and locals used this capacity to create the Color Revolutions. So, the U.S. was heavily involved, but not in a directive capacity, just in a support capacity, and this support was focused on the ability to push for democracy, not particular opposition parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjQ-5N7RIF4