pThe Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckessoniMckesson v. Doe/i/a, that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pAcross the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Happened in Mckesson v. Doe?/h2 /div pThe case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releasesiMckesson v. Doe/i/a, was brought by a police officer against a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/deray-mckesson-on-the-threat-to-protesters-rightsDeRay Mckesson/a, a prominent civil rights activist. The officer claims that Mckesson should be liable for personal injuries he suffered after an unknown individual — not Mckesson — threw a “rock-like” object at the officer during a 2016 protest of the killing of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police./p pThe officer does not claim that Mckesson encouraged or even knew about the rock-throwing. Rather than sue the rock-thrower, however, the officer is suing Mckesson on the theory that he allegedly organized the protest and in turn had a duty to protect every person there. In doing so, the argument goes, he “should have known” an assault could occur./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1600 height=1066 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg 1600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1536x1023.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1000x666.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1200x800.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1400x933.jpg 1400w sizes=(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank Mckesson v. Doe /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletCan a protest leader be held legally responsible for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act at the protest?/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe idea is that a protest organizer can be held responsible for what a stranger present at the protest does to someone else, not because the organizer asked or meant for them to do it, but merely because it was foreseeable that they might. If this theory of “negligent protest” were accepted, it would become far more risky to organize a protest. The ACLU has argued that this standard of liability violates the First Amendment in part because it would pose an unconstitutional burden on our right to protest./p pDespite this, and after several years of procedural back-and-forth between courts, the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2023 that the negligence claim against McKesson did not violate the First Amendment. Instead, the Fifth Circuit held that a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pRecognizing how this decision squarely violates First Amendment fundamentals, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson?document=plaintiff-applicant-brief-certified-question#press-releasespetition for certiorari/a, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s obviously wrong ruling. Unfortunately, the court a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfdenied our petition/a./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Does the Supreme Court’s Denial of Review Mean for Our Right to Protest?/h2 /div pWhile the Supreme Court does not generally explain why it declines to hear a case — and it can do so for any number of reasons — Justice Sonia Sotomayor a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfwrote a statement/a accompanying the denial that might explain the reason in this case: the Supreme Court has already settled this question, so the law is not in need of further clarification./p pIn her statement, Justice Sotomayor explains that, in 2023, shortly after the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/counterman-v-coloradoiCounterman v. Colorado/i/ai, /iwhere it confirmed that negligence is never a sufficient basis for imposing liability on political expression and association. In fact, in iCounterman/i, the court made it explicitly clear that, when it comes to drawing the line between unprotected incitement and the kinds of “strong protests against the government and prevailing social order” that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, a showing of intent is required. That’s a much higher standard than negligence, which asks only whether someone who didn’t know what impact their speech would have ishould /ihave known the possible effect. Intent, in contrast, requires that the speaker knew about, wanted, and aimed for the resulting harm./p pJustice Sotomayor concluded her statement by emphasizing that while the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in iCounterman /iwhen it issued its opinion, the lower courts in this case (and in general) now do, and are expected to fairly apply that decision in future proceedings./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardHas Our Right to Protest Changed? /h2 /div pSome people have suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case means that our right to protest has been effectively abolished in three U.S. states. That’s not accurate./p pWhile it is true that the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous decision has not been vacated, and technically could be invoked against protest organizers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, it is important to understand two things./p pFirst, separate from the First Amendment problem, there’s the question of whether a “negligent protest” claim even exists under a state’s civil law. In iMckesson/i, the Louisiana Supreme Court said yes, but the high courts in Texas and Mississippi haven’t said the same. That means, the theory of “negligent protest” in iMckesson /iis specific to Louisiana state law./p pSecond, when it comes to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear in many other cases that negligence is too low a threshold for imposing liability on one person for another person’s violence or other illegal acts at a protest./p pTo take just one example, in 1982, the court held that while the Constitution does not protect violence, it does limit the government’s ability to place responsibility for that violence onto peaceful protest leaders who did not direct or intend it. That seminal civil rights case, iNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co./i, has been cited repeatedly to ensure robust speech protections, including to a href=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kentucky-lawsuit/trump-wins-dismissal-of-inciting-to-riot-lawsuit-over-2016-rally-idUSKCN1LR22Bdismiss a lawsuit/a against then-candidate Donald Trump for violent acts committed by others at a campaign rally and to a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters/challenge/a efforts to stifle Keystone XL pipeline protests. As Justice Sotomayor’s statement highlighted, the court recently reaffirmed these rules in iCounterman/i./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank South Dakota Governor Caves on Attempted Efforts to Silence Pipeline Protesters /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe state's quick retreat should serve as a lesson for other legislatures: if you criminalize protest, we will sue./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pHowever, since the Supreme Court did not officially reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, it is possible that a court in Louisiana may decide to apply the Fifth Circuit’s logic. Say, for example, that a small crowd of people act violently at a protest in Louisiana and the protest organizer — who had no connection to the violence — is subsequently sued for negligence. The lower court should heed Justice Sotomayor#8217;s statement, correctly apply iCounterman/i, and dismiss this claim for violating the First Amendment. But it is possible that a lower court would still apply the Fifth Circuit’s decision, issued prior to iCounterman. /iIf that were to happen, the ACLU is interested in fighting alongside the organizer to ensure that the correct rule ultimately applies, and that the Fifth Circuit’s clearly erroneous decision does not govern anywhere./p pSince our founding, efforts to silence dissent have emerged in moments of mass protest, like what we find ourselves in today. However, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld our right to protest and our right to be responsible only for our own actions. Today, the ACLU urges the lower courts to continue protecting our rights, and to deny the Fifth Circuit’s deeply misguided theory from gaining any traction. No one should be afraid to express dissent, to advocate for change, or to support causes they believe in./p pa href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCR7yfxnwWAPlay the video/a/p img width=1334 height=708 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png class=attachment-16x9_1400 size-16x9_1400 alt=A photo of activist DeRay Mckesson. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png 1334w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-768x408.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-400x212.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-600x318.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-800x425.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1000x531.png 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1200x637.png 1200w sizes=(max-width: 1334px) 100vw, 1334px /

pTechnology is a necessity of modern life. People of all ages rely on it for everything from accessing information and connecting with others, to paying for goods, using transportation, getting work done, and speaking out about issues of the day. Without adequate privacy protections, technology can be co-opted to surveil us online and intrude on our private lives–not only by the government, but also by businesses–with grave consequences for our rights./p pThere is sometimes a misconception that shielding our personal information from this kind of misuse will violate the First Amendment rights of corporations who stand to profit from collecting, analyzing, and sharing that information. But we don’t have to sacrifice robust privacy protection to uphold anyone’s right to free speech. In fact, when done right, strong privacy protections reinforce speech rights. They create spaces where people have the confidence to exercise their First Amendment rights to candidly communicate with friends, seek out advice and community, indulge curiosity, and anonymously speak or access information./p pAt the same time, simply calling something a “privacy law” doesn’t make it so. Take the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), a law currently under review by the Ninth Circuit in iNetChoice v. Bonta/i. As the ACLU and the ACLU of Northern California argued in a a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/netchoice-llc-v-bonta?document=Amici-Curiae-Brief-of-the-ACLU-%26-ACLU-of-Northern-Californiafriend-of-the-court brief/a, this law improperly included content restrictions on online speech and is unconstitutional. Laws can and should be crafted to protect both privacy and free speech rights. It is critical that legislatures and courts get the balance right when it comes to a law that implicates our ability to control our personal information and to speak and access content online./p pConsumer privacy matters. With disturbing frequency, businesses use technology to siphon hordes of personal information from us – learning things about our health, our family situation, our financial status, our location, our age, and even our beliefs. Not only can they paint intimate portraits of our lives but, armed with this information, they can raise or lower prices depending on our demographics, make discriminatory predictions about a href=https://www.wired.com/story/argentina-algorithms-pregnancy-prediction/health outcomes/a, improperly deny a href=https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Main/documents/HUD_v_Facebook.pdfhousing/a or a href=https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/12/tech/facebook-job-ads-gender-discrimination-asequals-intl-cmd/index.htmljobs/a, a href=https://www.propublica.org/article/health-insurers-are-vacuuming-up-details-about-you-and-it-could-raise-your-rateshike insurance rates/a, and flood people of color and low-income people with a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/fair-lending-and-accountability.htmlads for predatory loans/a./p pAll this nefarious behavior holds serious consequences for our financial stability, our health, our quality of life, and our civil rights, including our First Amendment rights. Better consumer privacy gives advocates, activists, whistleblowers, dissidents, authors, artists, and others the confidence to speak out. Only when people are free from the fear that what they’re doing online is being monitored and shared can they feel free to enjoy the full extent of their rights to read, investigate, discuss, and be inspired by whatever they want./p pYet in recent years, tech companies have argued that consumer privacy protections limit their i /iFirst Amendment rights to collect, use, and share people’s personal information. These arguments are often faulty. Just because someone buys a product or signs up for a service, that doesn’t give the company providing that good or service the First Amendment right to share or use the personal information they collect from that person however they want./p pTo the contrary, laws that require data minimization and high privacy settings by default are good policy and can easily pass First Amendment muster. Arguments to the contrary not only misunderstand the First Amendment; they’d actually weaken its protections./p pLaws that suppress protected speech in order to stop children from accessing certain types of content generally often hurt speech and privacy rights for all. That’s why First Amendment challenges to laws a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/arkansas-wants-to-unconstitutionally-card-people-before-they-use-social-mediathat limit what we can see online/a typically succeed. The Supreme Court has made it clear time and again that the government cannot regulate speech solely to stop children from seeing ideas or images that a legislative body believes to be unsuitable. Nor can it limit adults’ access to speech in the name of shielding children from certain content./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/arkansas-wants-to-unconstitutionally-card-people-before-they-use-social-media target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/493ead8cd079d73577ec75d5436e8b10-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/arkansas-wants-to-unconstitutionally-card-people-before-they-use-social-media target=_blank Arkansas Wants to Unconstitutionally “Card” People Before They Use Social Media /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/arkansas-wants-to-unconstitutionally-card-people-before-they-use-social-media target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe state’s Social Media Safety Act stifles freedom of expression online and violates the First Amendment./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/arkansas-wants-to-unconstitutionally-card-people-before-they-use-social-media target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe CAADCA is unconstitutional for these reasons, despite the legislature’s understandable concerns about the privacy, wellbeing, and safety of children. The law was drafted so broadly that it actually would have hurt children. It could have prevented young people and adults from accessing things like online mental health resources; support communities related to school shootings and suicide prevention; and reporting about war, the climate crisis, and gun violence. It also could interfere with students#8217; attempts to express political or religious speech, or provide and receive personal messages about deaths in the family, rejection from a college, or a breakup. Paradoxically, the law exposes everyone’s information to greater privacy concerns by encouraging companies to gather and analyze user data for age estimation purposes./p pWhile we believe that the CAADCA burdens free speech and should be struck down, it is important that the court not issue a ruling that forecloses a path that other privacy laws could take to protect privacy without violating the First Amendment. We need privacy and free speech, too, especially in the digital age./p