Sheesh! This is clearly absurd, and shame on the federal appeals court that let it move forward. What I, or anyone else, think of Black Lives Matter is irrelevant to the vital need to protect the right to assemble and protest.
If there were evidence that the purpose of the protest envisioned by the planners was to facilitate vandalism, arson, theft, and assault then the planners are clearly not shielded by the First Amendment from criminal indictment or civil liability. If there is no evidence to that effect then their First Amendment rights could not constitutionally be challenged. Like all lawsuits, it would be evidence, not suspicions, that would determine the appropriate legal approach. (I'm stressing that last point, Mr. White, because your suggestion that protesters are purposely facilitating is grounded only in what you "feel like.")
Sheesh! This is clearly absurd, and shame on the federal appeals court that let it move forward. What I, or anyone else, think of Black Lives Matter is irrelevant to the vital need to protect the right to assemble and protest.
How then should we react to a gathering that claims to be a protest but is actively shielding vandals, arsonists, thieves and assaulters from the law?
We don't want to let criminals have a veto on the protest, but I feel like protesters covering for criminals are aiding and abetting a crime.
If there were evidence that the purpose of the protest envisioned by the planners was to facilitate vandalism, arson, theft, and assault then the planners are clearly not shielded by the First Amendment from criminal indictment or civil liability. If there is no evidence to that effect then their First Amendment rights could not constitutionally be challenged. Like all lawsuits, it would be evidence, not suspicions, that would determine the appropriate legal approach. (I'm stressing that last point, Mr. White, because your suggestion that protesters are purposely facilitating is grounded only in what you "feel like.")