One thought on “So much for the First Amendment

  1. ‘The terrorism charges reveal a “false equivalency between people who kill, and people who commit acts of property damage,”’

    OTOH, there are lots of people who intensely dislike politically-motivated property damage, or any deliberate property damage for that matter. (This is especially true among small business owners, to whom it is an existential threat, and who are one of the steadiest factions in the Republican coalition.) There also are people who don’t consider property damage to be a true crime, or even to be violence, and similarly for preventing people from peacible use of their property. (Usually they are twenty-somethings who don’t own property.)

    It seems to me a better approach is for protesters to take care to note what is legal and what is not in protesting, and stay with the former. Indeed, such an exhibition of self-control and consideration for the rules makes their protest much more convincing to the people they need to persuade. (ML King, with his relentless insistence on nonviolence, used it as a tool to be quite successful.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.