It Could Happen Here - No, The Supreme Court Has Not Banned Protest

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

James talks to Mo about the supreme court’s decision not to hear the McKesson case, what it really means for protest, and wise legal strategy for protesters in a year of election and genocide. https://harvard.turtl.co/story/protect-your-people/page/1  https://ssd.eff.org  Https://NLG.org See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into tech's elite and how they've turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech brought to you by an industry veteran with nothing to lose. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever else you get your podcasts from. Hey, I'm Jacqueline Thomas, the host of a brand new Black Effect original series, Black Lit, the podcast for diving deep into the rich world of Black literature.

Black Lit is for the page turners, for those who listen to audiobooks while running errands or at the end of a busy day. From thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry, we'll explore the stories that shape our culture. Listen to Black Lit on the Black Effect Podcast Network, iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. AT&T. Connecting changes everything. podcast. AT&T, connecting changes everything. Hey, I'm Gianna Pertenti. And I'm Jamee Jackson Gadsden. We're the hosts of Let's Talk Offline from LinkedIn News and iHeart Podcasts. If you're early in your career, you probably have a lot of money questions. So we're talking to finance expert Vivian Tu, aka Your Rich BFF, to break it down. Looking at the numbers is one of the most

honest reflections of what your financial picture actually is. The numbers won't lie to you. Listen to this week's episode of Let's Talk Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. CallZone Media. Hi everyone, welcome to the podcast. It's me, James, and I'm joined today by Mo, who is an attorney, educator, and abolitionist. They've been on the show before. We've very much enjoyed their contributions. We're here today to talk about the recent Supreme Court, not decision, right, but the Supreme Court declining to hear a case. Court, not decision, right, but the Supreme Court declining to hear a case. It's been reported a little bit. Perhaps, I think the importance of it may have been overstated and Mo's going to help us understand that. How are you doing today, Mo? I'm doing all right. How are you doing?

I'm doing well. It's a nice day. Went for a run this morning, saw some flowers, picked some fennel. That was nice. Yeah. That's very nice. Yeah, wild fennel that was nice yeah that's very nice yeah wild fennel if you live in southern california now's the time just a little tip from me i don't get it at the height that dogs pee you want to go above that it's a pro tip you can't say that we don't fill this podcast with little easter eggs see talking talking of little easter eggs let's get into the things that are buried within this. What happened was the Supreme Court declined to hear a case. Is that right? That's right. So the case that the Supreme Court declined to hear is McKesson v. Doe. This is a case that they have declined to hear eight times.

This is a case that they have declined to hear eight times. And it keeps going back up and down from, I think, the middle district of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, all the way up to the Supreme Court. And it's a case that involves the First Amendment. And the way that it has been reported, I think, or at least the way that it has been received, particularly by communities of people who do engage in a lot of First Amendment protected activity, has been with a certain amount of panic that the Supreme Court saying, we're not going to hear this case, we're going to kick it back down to the Fifth Circuit, we're going to kick it back down to the district court, is, you know, a harbinger of terrible things to come for the right to protest and for the kinds of liability that you might be exposed to if you are engaging

in protest. And there is some truth to that. It is, I would say, often dangerous to engage in acts of dissent. But I think that there's some real misapprehension of what's going on with this particular case. And so I thought it was worth having a conversation with you to try to clarify a little bit about what's going on here, what the risks are associated specifically with this case, and what the risks actually are on the ground with respect to protest. And also to talk to you about some of the resources that are available to protect yourself. Wonderful. Yeah. So I guess to give you a little roadmap, I think I'll start by talking to you about like, what is actually the law on the ground at this point with respect to the First Amendment and rights to protest?

Yes. Have those rights actually been meaningfully altered by this case or by the Supreme Court declining to hear this case? Has it actually become more dangerous to protest? Are there things that we should be worried about? What are they? And then what kinds of resources there are? I guess the first thing I'm going to do is give you a very brief primer on the First Amendment. So the First Amendment guarantees, as I like to say, the very First Amendment guarantees our rights to speech and assembly. The government can place limits on the time, place and manner of your protest. But the government is not authorized to criminalize speech

based on subject matter or viewpoint, and it can't impose what's called a prior restraint on speech, which can include making it so risky to speak that people engage in self-censorship. But the First Amendment doesn't immunize you from prosecution or civil liability for otherwise unlawful conduct, right? So that's why true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment, right? And it doesn't protect you from being arrested for behavior just because that behavior is politically motivated, which is why breaking Starbucks windows and graffiti and assassination are not protected by the First Amendment. Right. Right. On the other hand, the fact that there are one or more people at a demonstration who are acting unlawfully does not strip the larger demonstration of First Amendment protection. And that principle comes from a case called NAACP versus Claiborne Hardware.

And Claiborne, it was decided in 1982. And it was a case where the NAACP was sued civilly on the basis that they had organized a protest where some people in the crowd had caused some damage. I see. This is a very, very similar case to the underlying case in this situation where DeRay McKesson has been sued civilly. DeRay McKesson has been sued civilly. Meaning he's being sued for money damages. He is not being criminally prosecuted. Right. That's an important distinction. So you know what, let's back up a little bit. So yeah, can you explain who is DeRay McKesson? Why is DeRay McKesson bouncing up and down between Louisiana and the Supreme Court? Yes. OK, so I'm going to back up even farther than that. The reason that we are here today, that I am here with you talking about this case, is that the way that this case is being reported on or received is that people are going, oh, God, it's now illegal to protest and we're all

going to go to prison for protesting. Like, okay, I mean, first of all, police using mass arrest of protesters to chill in silent speech is already a time-honored American tradition. Yes. But that isn't what this case is about. is a civil case which means that somebody is being sued for money damages and the person who's being sued is DeRay McKesson DeRay McKesson was at one point for anyone who can remember a decade ago was very profile, very visible in the Black Lives Matter movement in Ferguson and in Baltimore, and then later in Louisiana. And he was somebody who was very visible in the media. He made a lot of public statements. He made a lot of public statements on behalf of Black Lives Matter, which, you know, I'm going to get into is not a membership organization. But he made a bunch

of statements as though he were the representative of a movement, which he referred to as Black Lives Matter. He organized a lot of protests. I think at one point, I have a memory that he ran for office. So he was a very visible movement organizer. Right. He organized a protest in, I believe, 2017 in the wake of the police murder of olden sterling at which a police officer was hit in the head with a hard object a rock or a piece of concrete and he was like the police Right. Like, pretty seriously. Yeah. of the protest and he had some responsibility for the fact that this other person had thrown a rock at him. This theory requires a real failure to understand social movements and distributed networks because what it presumes, and I think we've talked about this before on this show is the inability of the police and the courts to understand that not every social movement operates with a clear hierarchy like the police, right? Yeah.

Or the military because their social movement groups do imitate the military. They do imitate that hierarchy. They totally reproduce this sort of chain of command theory. Yeah. So if you look at the Klan, right, they are organized via, they are incorporated, they have a membership, there is a clear hierarchy, who is in charge, who is giving orders, who is following orders, right? Yeah, it's the same. That is not the case. Proud Boys, Patriot Front, like they're incapable of organizing without authority. And conceiving of anyone doing so, it would seem.

Right. And so I think I've told you before, I've actually had to drop footnotes in federal court filings to explain that Antifa is not a membership organization. Yeah, this is a discussion that I have been privy to as a historian of the same organization. Yeah. Originally it was ironically, right? The KPD was. When we're referring it to that, we're not talking about 1933 Germany. No. So, you know, when someone says, and this becomes relevant here, because the initially, when this suit was filed, it was two different lawsuits. And it was a group of police officers who had been shot in different places in the country suing not only Dorey McKesson, but Black Lives Matter. And I think in fact, one of the defendants who was named in one of the

initial suits was hashtag Black Lives Matter. So I don't know how you serve a hashtag. Yeah. Fascinating. Totally fascinating. I mean, the legal theory underlying these cases was pretty bonkers. And then various other individuals who were part of different Black Lives Matter groups, right? Okay. went after all these people and hashtags for the shootings were really just legally insufficient, right? The allegations that were made were Black Lives Matter, whatever that is, made statements about how policing is unjust and police shouldn't be surprised if there's,

you know, if they encounter resistance. And then these other people kind of showed up and shot at cops. And the theory is that by sort of making these statements, Black Lives Matter encouraged or incited and was responsible for these shootings. Yeah. This is not a valid these shootings. Yeah. This is not a valid legal theory. Right. I mean, it just is not. And that case was dismissed, you know, just entirely. And then the second case that was brought was this one where the guy who was hit in the head with a rock.

And it's the same allegations, the same theory of liability. And everybody got dismissed out of that case. of liability. And everybody got dismissed out of that case. All of the defendants got dismissed out of that case, except for DeRay McKesson. And part of the reason that everyone else was dismissed out of that case, or that the suit was dismissed with respect to those named defendants, is that Black Lives Matter was an unincorporated association. And an unincorporated association can't be sued. And this has been relevant in other cases. I'm not trying to give anyone legal advice, but I want people to think about the fact. I think there's a real impulse sometimes in social movement organizing that we need to make everything a nonprofit.

Yeah, yeah. Or we need to have a bank account even. And the fact is when you create an organization, even if it's an unincorporated association, that where the entity has what you would say is its personality is distinct from that of its members. Right. Right? Yeah, it's is distinct from that of its members. Right. Right? Yeah, it's a distinctive. It can be sued. You become susceptible to a lawsuit.

Right. And so, for example, when energy transfer partners tried to sue, there's currently a suit against Greenpeace. The Standing Rock. Yes, the Standing Rock suit. Yeah. And we'll talk about that later, right? It's a Rock suit. Yeah. And we'll talk about that later, right? It's a slap suit. It's a suit that endeavors to stifle speech that's in the public interest. Right.

Okay. When that suit first started, they tried to sue Earth First. But Earth First is not an entity. Right. Yeah, yeah. You can't serve. There's no one to serve. You know, there's nobody there. It you know there's nobody there it's not

you know it's like antifa it'd be like trying to sue batman fans right yeah yeah yeah yeah exactly we'd love to see it right there's there are maybe people who identify in that way but there is not a coherent group. Right. And there's certainly not a group that can take responsibility for the behavior of its members. Right. Talking of taking responsibility, Mo, we unfortunately have to take responsibility for the fact that we now have to pivot to ads. Okay. If you say so. I do. I'm so sorry. It's not my favorite part of my job.

I found out I was related to the guy that I was dating. I don't feel emotions correctly. I am talking to a felon right now, and I cannot decide if I like him or not. Those were some callers from my call-in podcast, Therapy Gecko. It's a show where I take real phone calls from anonymous strangers all over the world as a fake gecko therapist and try to dig into their brains and learn a little bit about their lives. I know that's a weird concept, but I promise it's pretty interesting if you give it a shot. Matter of fact, here's a few more examples of the kinds of calls we get on this show. I live with my boyfriend and I found his piss jar in our apartment. I collect my roommate's toenails and fingernails.

I have very overbearing parents. Even at the age of 29, they won't let me move out of their house. So if you want an excuse to get out of your own head and see what's going on in someone else's head, search for Therapy Gecko on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's the one with the green guy on it. Hey, I'm Jack Peace Thomas, the host of a brand new Black Effect original series,

Black Lit, the podcast for diving deep into the rich world of Black literature. I'm Jack Peace Thomas, and I'm inviting you to join me in a vibrant community of literary enthusiasts dedicated to protecting and celebrating our stories. Black Lit is for the page turners, for those who listen to audiobooks while commuting or running errands,

for those who find themselves seeking solace, wisdom, and refuge between the chapters. From thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry, find themselves seeking solace, wisdom, and refuge between the chapters. From thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry, we'll explore the stories that shape our culture. Together, we'll dissect classics and contemporary works while uncovering the stories of the brilliant writers behind them. Black Lit is here to amplify the voices of Black writers and to bring their words to life.

Listen to Black Lit on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into how tech's elite has turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech from an industry veteran with nothing to lose. This season I'm going to be joined by everyone from Nobel winning economists to leading journalists in the field and I'll be digging into why the products you love keep getting worse and naming and shaming those responsible. Don't get me wrong though,

I love technology. I just hate the people in charge and want them to get back to building things that actually do things to help real people. I swear to God things can change if we're loud enough. So join me every week to understand what's happening in the tech industry and what could be done to make things better. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Check out betteroffline.com. All right, we're back. We've pivoted to ads.

So, yeah, we were talking about the difference between an incorporated organization, which can be sued. Can you maybe just, even if we step it back like a little bit further and explain the difference between civil and criminal uh liability just in case people haven't got that criminal liability is like when you are criminally charged by the state by the government for violating a criminal law, right? And when you are criminally charged, what is on the table is that you might go to jail or you might go to prison. Yeah. You can also be civilly sued. And what's happening there is if someone says, and what's happening there is if someone says,

okay, you've, you know, you wrecked my car, or your dog bit me, or you punched me in the face and I lost a tooth, then you can be civilly sued by that person for money damages. Got it. Right? To compensate you for the loss. So in this case, Mr. McKesson is being civilly sued, not arrested, not prosecuted, not subject. There is no possibility that if he loses this case,

he'll go to jail. Yeah. So this civil case happens in Louisiana, right? Yeah, let's talk about how it bounces around the Fifth Circuit. So I started to tell you that there were sort of these two cases. The first one is entirely dismissed. The second one, they say, all right, Black Lives Matter is not an association that can be sued. These other individuals that you've named here as defendants were not present, made no statements about it. Well, first they dismissed the whole thing, actually. Then the cop appealed to the circuit and the circuit said, yeah, mostly you're right, district court. All of these people can't be sued. But Mr. McKesson, we do think, could be liable under a theory of negligence because he

organized the protest and was present. This officer sues McKesson and a bunch of other people. And the officer says that Mr. McKesson is liable because he organized this protest and knew or should have known that it could potentially turn violent. And so he says under Louisiana law, he can sue on a theory of negligence, which doesn't require any kind of intent or certain knowledge. It's just being negligent. Initially, the court, the federal district court dismisses those claims, all them based on naacp v clayborne which i talked about earlier right which says if you're at a protest and one person gets violent like the rest of the protest doesn't get does not lose its first amendment protected character just because other people are violent then the cop appeals and the Fifth Circuit in part affirms their rulings about all of the other people who were sued, but reinstates the negligence claim against Mr. McKesson.

Right. He then, it does, it never, by the way, has proceeded to trial. This case is still in a very preliminary phase. Oh, wow. It has been going on since 2017, and it's been bouncing up and down the courts. But the question is, can he even be sued under this theory? So we haven't gotten, he hasn't been found guilty. We haven't had a presentation of evidence. There's all kinds of stuff that has not yet happened in this case.

Right. The question is very, very narrow. It's can a person be sued under a theory of negligence when they organize a protest and somebody else at that protest causes some kind of harm. Right. So the Fifth Circuit says, go back district court and hear this claim of negligence. McKesson then brings it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit and says it overturns their decision and says you actually can't force the district court to proceed with this trial because you didn't check in with the Louisiana State Court to get their feedback about whether Louisiana state law actually allows for this kind of negligence claim. Okay. So like they missed procedurally, they fucked up. Yes. Then the fifth circuit says, okay, fine. Louisiana Supreme court. What do you think? And the court says, yeah, we think you can proceed on this negligence claim.

And then the Fifth Circuit affirms its previous ruling and says, okay, now, district court, hear it again, and you can hear this negligence claim as to Mr. McKesson. They tried to distinguish it from Claiborne. I don't think they did a good job. There was a three-judge panel that ruled on this. So it was a 2-1 ruling. Two of the judges tried to distinguish it from Claiborne. One of the judges says, no, you know, Claiborne is controlling. You can only hold somebody liable for their own behavior.

Right. You can only hold somebody liable for their own behavior. Right. And one of the things he says is that if you make protest organizers liable for someone else's violent behavior, all a counter protester has to do is show up and start throwing rocks in order to get the whole protest to, you know, to impute liability to the person who organized the protest. And that goes both ways, right? So I am sort of surprised that they, given that there are social movements that are probably more aligned with the values and beliefs of these federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. So the Fifth Circuit at this point says, no, go back to the district court and have the trial on the theory of negligence. Right. Then the Supreme Court decided a case called Counterman v. Colorado.

the Supreme Court decided a case called Counterman v. Colorado. Counterman v. Colorado is not a First Amendment political speech case. It's a case about somebody making threats. But that case relies very heavily on Claiborne. So in that case, we have what's called a true threats analysis, and they're trying to determine whether a person who's making threats needs to actually know that the threats they're making are going to be perceived as real threats. And what they decided was they do need to know to some degree that these statements could be taken as true threats. But they talk a lot. Kagan authored this opinion and she talks a lot about how careful we have to be even with speech that is traditionally not protected like true threats, because it's very important not to chill protected speech. And what she says is that the court has always been really wary of chilling protected speech. And so sometimes it makes extra space for speech that isn't protected in order to make really sure it

doesn't chill protected speech. Right. So she says, the court must consider the prospect of chilling non-threatening expression, given the ordinary citizen's predictable tendency to steer wide of the unlawful zone. The speaker's fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat, his fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong, his fear in any event of incurring legal costs, all those may lead him to swallow words that are in fact not true threats. And so what they say is we need to make a standard that has enough what they say is breathing room to make sure that even if it means that some unprotected speech gets through, we have enough space for all of the protected speech to still exist and for nobody to feel uncertain about whether or not their speech is protected.

Yeah, sure. They don't want to gradually have a creeping sort of boundary. They don't want to gradually have a creeping sort of boundary. Yeah. So what she says is if we're going to ban any kind of speech, it has to be known and knowable to the speaker. And there has to be sort of a requirement that the speaker is actually aware that this is not protected speech. And so in this case, in counterman with the guy who's making the bizarre threats, what they decide is you only need to be reckless about the speech. You don't have to be doing it intentionally to threaten someone. But if you're saying things that you,

even if you don't mean it to be a threat, if you could reasonably anticipate that it will be received as a threat, that's sufficient. Okay. Okay. And then she says this, our incitement decisions, right? So Supreme Court decisions regarding incitement to violence, demand more. But the reason for that demand is not present here where we're talking about threats. When incitement is at issue, we have spoken in terms of specific intent, presumably equivalent to purpose or knowledge. In doing so, we recognized that incitement to disorder is commonly a hair's breadth away from political advocacy and particularly from strong protests against the government and prevailing order. Such protests gave rise to all the cases in which the court demanded a showing of intent, and the court decided those

cases against a resonant historical backdrop, the court's failure in an earlier era to protect mere advocacy of force or lawbreaking from legal sanction. A strong intent requirement was and remains one way to guarantee history was not repeated. It was a way to ensure the efforts to prosecute incitement would not bleed over either directly or through a chilling effect to dissenting political speech at the First Amendment's core. Okay, so we have this case that's decided days after the Fifth Circuit makes its decision that directly speaks to this decision. Right? It reaffirms Claiborne. It reaffirms that political speech is protected.

It reaffirms that you cannot have a negligence standard. You have to have a standard. You can't just say, well, somebody knew or should have known that organizing a protest might lead to violence. Right. You say they have to be like, we're going to go out and we're going to do violence at this protest at this time. Right. They have to be actually advocating for violence in order to be held responsible for violence, right? So how does this not just lead to his case

being dismissed? So then at the same time as that's happening, Mr. McKesson has asked the court again to weigh in on whether this case can proceed under a negligence theory, right? Meaning, can he be prosecuted because it's possible that a protest will turn violent? Right. And the court says, we're not going to hear this case. And somewhat unusually, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issues a statement along with the denial of hearing the case. And she says, this court may deny what's called certiorari, right, hearing the case. The court may deny certiorari for many reasons, including that the law is not in need of further clarification. Right. 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. Right. So I don't think that it's some like terrible thing that the court said, oh, no, we're not going to hear this case. I don't think they're saying in any way, oh, we're not going to hear this case because we think it ought to proceed further and go to trial down in Louisiana. I think what they're saying is we already decided this issue. The law remains the same. Claiborne is still the controlling case here. Right. Yeah. It seems very clear that what they're saying is like, we've already made clear where we stand on this. That's right. And so the last thing that's on the docket in Mr. McKesson's case is basically a submission that reiterates what Justice Sotomayor said. I'll just read you a little from this. It says, Sotomayor's statement explains that the court's decision expresses no view about the merits of the claim because the law is not in need of further

clarification. So it suggests that the existing clear law comes from counterman. And the statement makes even clearer that the First Amendment does not permit liability on the negligence theory advanced by the cop in this case. It doesn't say the cop in this case. So it makes very clear, you know, they have submitted, Mr. McKesson's counsel has submitted this statement to the judge. And I think there is every possibility that this case is just going to to die at this point um you know remember the district court already dismissed it altogether at once and has only been carrying it forward because they were ordered to by the fifth circuit yeah yes it would just go back to the district. Yeah, exactly. So in fact, there has been a lot of anxiety about, oh, the Supreme Court is signaling that the law has changed and that the Fifth Circuit can just criminalize protest. In fact, what I think has happened here is that the Supreme Court affirmed

that the Fifth Circuit may not expose people to civil liability for organizing a protest. That does not mean that the courts down there are not going to try to keep going forward with this. But I think if they did, and if Mr. McKesson was like, like a if they even allowed it to continue it might just go right back up to the supreme court and the supreme court might at that point hear it because they've already said no we expect you to right yeah follow the law that we just re-articulated in this other case right um but again remember that we haven't had a trial yet. He hasn't been found guilty. He hasn't. Right. Like the question is, can we even proceed in this case? Let's take a second ad break here and then we'll come back and discuss.

I found out I was related to the guy that I was dating. I don't feel emotions correctly. I am talking to a felon right now, and I cannot decide if I like him or not. Those were some callers from my call-in podcast, Therapy Gecko. It's a show where I take real phone calls from anonymous strangers all over the world as a fake gecko therapist and try to dig into their brains and learn a little bit about their lives. I know that's a weird concept, but I promise it's pretty interesting if you give it a shot. Matter of fact, here's a few more examples of the kinds of calls we get on this show.

I live with my boyfriend and I found his piss jar in our apartment. I collect my roommate's toenails and fingernails. I have very overbearing parents. Even at the age of 29, they won't let me move out of their house. So if you want an excuse to get out of your own head and see what's going on in someone else's head, search for Therapy Gecko on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's the one with the green guy on it. Hey, I'm Jack Peace Thomas, the host of a brand new Black Effect original series,

Black Lit, the podcast for diving deep into the rich world of Black literature. I'm Jack Peace Thomas, and I'm inviting you to join me in a vibrant community of literary enthusiasts dedicated to protecting and celebrating our stories. Black Lit is for the page turners, for those who listen to audiobooks while commuting or running errands,

for those who find themselves seeking solace, wisdom, and refuge between the chapters. From thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry, we'll explore the stories that shape our culture. Together, we'll dissect classics and contemporary works while uncovering the stories of the brilliant writers behind them. Blacklit is here to amplify the voices of Black writers and to bring their words to life. Listen to Blacklit on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hola, mi gente. It's Honey German, and I'm bringing you Gracias, Come Again, the podcast where we dive deep into the world of Latin culture, or wherever you get your podcasts. We're talking real conversations with our Latin stars, from actors and artists to musicians and creators, sharing their stories, struggles, and successes. You know it's going to be filled with chisme laughs and all the vibes that you love. Each week, we'll explore everything from music and pop culture to deeper topics like identity, community, and breaking down barriers in all sorts of industries.

Don't miss out on the fun, El Te Caliente, and life stories. Join me for Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get into todo lo actual y viral. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This may have been over-exaggerated in terms of its importance of state repression and protest but that doesn't mean that state repression and protest is not happening right it is so can you explain to us the mechanisms through which that happens and the considerations and resources available to people who may wish to exercise their first Amendment rights. Yes, absolutely. So has it become more dangerous to protest? I mean, I guess, but not because of this case, right? Right, yeah. I mean, in general, it has, right? The cops get bigger guns and more guns

and tear gas things every year, and then they love to use them. Yeah. Along with the legal consequences. Yes, and are there things that we should be worried about? Yes. But I don't think that this particular case on its own is the harbinger of the end of the First Amendment. It's one symptom of the larger underlying effort by the state and corporate capital and all of the forces of retrogression and repression to quell dissent. But it's just one of many, right? And we've seen

so many examples of this, and they are by no means new or novel, right? They're just trying out new legal theories, and this was one of them, and I don't think it's going to go anywhere. But I think we need to remember there's always sort of multiple fronts on which we're fighting this battle, right? There's the legal front. Right. And then there's the sort of on the ground law enforcement front. One of the reasons that Mr. McKesson was targeted here is because he did make, and this is not to say this is his fault. It absolutely is not. But one of the things that made him more susceptible to targeting is that he did make a ton of public statements and he was extremely visible in a way that aligned with the government's and the right

wing's understanding of social structures, right? Because if they understand that social movements are being directed from the top, which is not typically the case, but if that's what it looks like to them, and there is a person that they can identify who they can even a little bit make out of even the most tenuous case is in charge, then, you know, that's the person they're going to go after. Yeah. So to the extent that we're doing organizing that where it is distributed, it is autonomous, you know, it is spontaneous and we aren't working with in structures that are hierarchical and we're not working in structures that are incorporated and have bank accounts and public meetings and membership structures. You know, we're already very insulated from this kind of thing anyway. Right. The dangers are what the dangers have always been, which are mass arrest, because the police neither know nor care what the law is, and they don't care about Claiborne, and they don't care that the fact that you did not

personally throw a rock doesn't constitute probable cause to arrest you, right? Like, doesn't constitute probable cause to arrest you, right? Like, I am always more concerned about things on the ground, like mass arrests and police involved injuries, than I am about, frankly, about even long term legal consequences, because so often, and I guess I say this, because I have the privilege of practicing in New York where there is a very strong history of public protest and everyone sort of understands what that is and no one feels all that threatened by it. Right. Which doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of police-involved injuries and it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of traumatic arrests, but it does mean that typically there are not devastating legal consequences of that. Now, that's not the case in places like Georgia, right? Where they're doing their own sort of boundary testing down there to see what kinds of criminal liability

and what kinds of theories of criminal law they can use to sort of bootstrap absolutely garden variety protest behavior into really serious felony charges, right? So that's the kind of stuff that I would say, yeah, we should be worried about it. It is dangerous to protest. There's widespread surveillance. There's widespread public-private collaboration. There's widespread agency cooperation. There's all kinds of non-state actors, corporate actors, political actors, random individuals and small groups that are engaged in all kinds of surveillance. There's counter groups, right? We have, like you mentioned before, the Proud Boys. We have all kinds of, well, look, Canary Mission is a really good example, right? We have all kinds of actors, groups, individuals, corporations, government entities that have an interest

in suppressing dissent. And they engage in all kinds of conduct, ranging from intense surveillance to doxing to even more violent behavior, targeted harassment, not just by law enforcement, behavior, you know, targeted harassment, not just by law enforcement, but by individuals, by neighbors, by media outlets, right? And those are the kinds of things that make it dangerous to protest, I guess. But since when do we let that stop us? I mean, the solution to these kinds of dangers is to be thoughtful, to remember that discretion is the better part of valor, right? Meaning you don't need to be bragging about whatever you're doing on Twitter. You don't need to always be the public face of the movement because even if you're not speaking directly to cops in an interrogation, anything you say publicly can and very much will

be used against you. We're seeing a lot of employment and educational consequences, right? What's happening right now as we speak at Columbia University, people are losing their student housing. They're getting suspended from school. They're getting arrested. They're getting these student disciplinary proceedings. There's all kinds of risks to being a public dissident, but the solution to that kind of repression is not self-censorship, it's courage. There are other ways that we secure change, but showing up in the streets is always how you make history. And you have to be smart, but you also have to be brave as we reach another election year almost certainly like there will be protest which whatever happens in the election right

that will lead to people who are perhaps not so familiar with horizontal organizing with like anti-authoritarian or non-authoritarian organizing, all these things, entering a protest movement. And people will inevitably have to learn like one way or the other, you know, like these basic things which they can do to make it as safe as possible to protest. And it would be great if they could learn them from a podcast, not from them or their friends getting hurt. Here's what I would say too.

them or their friends getting hurt. Here's what I would say too. If it is at all possible, find a lawyer who is willing to consult with you before you go out and do your action, just so that you can be prepared, right? For purposes of informed consent. Because I cannot tell you, you know, lawyers are not allowed to advise their clients to break the law, but it's very much our job to tell you what the possible or likely consequences are of certain courses of action. And you are probably better off knowing what that is before you do the thing than after you do the thing. Yeah, that's a good idea. I will tell you that personally, I would rather spend many hours talking people through, you know, the various outcomes of different ideas than spending 10 minutes talking to them after they're already in a cell. Right.

You know, there are ways of protesting that are entirely lawful that can still help you to accomplish your political goals. And if you are going to go out and do something that you think is likely to involve arrest, I at least want you to know that it is likely to involve arrest. Yeah, you don't want to find out when you're being arrested. Exactly. You know, and what your specific risks might be. And to have somebody lined up to take care of you, to represent you if that becomes necessary. I really don't mean to say, oh, don't worry about McKesson v. Doe. It's no big deal. It is a big deal. It's a big deal because this whole judicial system and legal apparatus is working overtime to find every possible way to discourage protest. But it is

not unique in that regard. And I guess that's really what I'm trying to say. There are all kinds of ways in which we are at risk by being dissidents. I just don't think that this one is particularly special or particularly alarming. And again, what I just referred to as the law of the land is not the same thing as law enforcement practice. Right. Yeah. So I would really want to make sure that everyone remembers, A, the law is not the same thing as justice and neither is the law the same thing

or even necessarily related to what police are doing on the ground during a protest. Right. Yeah. Those are very different things. Where can people, I guess, people who are organizing, people who are, you know, organizing autonomous, spontaneous, horizontal movements, are there good resources for them to find? Because they might be, what's legal in my state?

What's, you know, what do I have to avoid? That kind of thing. Yes. Where would they find those? One resource, if you are contacted by federal law enforcement, is you can call the National Lawyers Guild Federal Anti-Repression Hotline at 212-679-2811. A really good resource is the Electronic frontier foundation's surveillance self-defense which is at s as in surveillance s as in self d as in defense dot e as in electronic

f as in frontier f as in foundation dot The National Lawyers Guild has various Know Your Rights guides that are available at NLG.org. We also have chapters all over the country. And if you look in our referral directory, you can find where those contacts for people all over the country. I think if you want a Know Your Rights training, you can reach out to the NLG. And there are a lot of other organizations that do Know Your Rights trainings. I know in New York, we have a really amazing organization called CUNY Clear. And I would highly recommend you follow them on Instagram because they often have a lot of resources that they're posting. Protect your people, a digital toolkit for organizations and employers.

And it was developed to combat anti-LGBTQ plus harassment. to combat anti-LGBTQ plus harassment, but I think the principles remain the same no matter what it is that you're looking at. And I'll put the link to that. Again, it's called Protect Your People, and it's hosted by the Harvard Law LGBTQ Clinic. But I'll stick the link here in the chat for you, James, so that you can share it in the show notes. Mo, to finish up, you've mentioned the National Lawyers Guild and some other resources. Is there anywhere else where people can find you

or where you think that they should be following along? Like we said, we're going into an election year. Stuff's probably becoming more relevant again. And there's a genocide happening right now that people are facing severe personal consequences for protesting. Yeah, I mean, I don't want anyone to follow me on social media.

Excellent. If that's what you're asking. I will always, every single time, plug landback.org. And if people... Yes, I can see that you have a land back flag behind you thank you yeah listeners when the only good flag yeah there's a black one next to it okay also a solid choice for flags if we gotta do flags oh also oh yeah please for the love God, don't talk to cops. It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com,

or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It Could Happen Here updated monthly at coolzonemedia.com slash sources. Thanks for listening. Hey, can I shout someone out? Yeah, please. We like that. Just randomly, I would like to shout out my beloved friend, Marion, who I know listens to this program. Hi, Marion. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast.

And we're kicking off our second season digging into tech's elite and how they've turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search, Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech brought to you by an industry veteran with nothing to lose. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever else you get your podcasts from. Hey, I'm Jacqueline Thomas,

the host of a brand new Black Effect original series, Black Lit, the podcast for diving deep into the rich world of black literature. Black Lit is for the page turners, for those who listen to audiobooks while running errands or at the end of a busy day from thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry we'll explore the stories that shape our culture listen to black lit on the black effect podcast network iheart radio app apple podcast or

wherever you get your podcasts at&, connecting changes everything. Hey, I'm Gianna Pertenti. And I'm Jamee Jackson-Gadsden. We're the hosts of Let's Talk Offline from LinkedIn News and iHeart Podcasts. If you're early in your career, you probably have a lot of money questions. So we're talking to finance expert Vivian Tu, aka Your Rich BFF, to break it down. Looking at the numbers is one of the most honest reflections of what your financial picture actually is. The numbers won't lie to you.

Listen to this week's episode of Let's Talk Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.