In the USA legislators and others in government have publicly voiced their support of, contributed to, and organized bail funds for specific groups of people ba

In the USA legislators and others in government have publicly voiced their support of, contributed to, and organized bail funds for specific groups of people based on their views on particular topics. One Presidential candidate's campaign (through its staffers) has also paid money towards something called the "Minnesota Freedom Fund". Why is there a contribution only to this fund? If you protest animal testing and are arrested for some similar crime, where is your bail fund? In those cases you have to organize the money yourself, people in your government don't organize it for you. Philosophically, government is supposed to serve everyone equally, but depending on the political views of the alleged criminal, or the self-proclaimed cause that they are supporting while performing allegedly illegal acts under the banner of "civil disobedience" or "peaceful protest", there is an availability of bail funds, selective prosecution, and all sorts of other features of the justice system available on a selective basis - i.e. the banner under which the illegality takes place. If the principle of selective/unequal dispensation of justice is wrong, it ought to be criticized irrespective of the form it takes. When it is ignored in some forms but other forms result in outrage, it's difficult not to question the motivations of whoever is amplifying this particular flavor of bias. If it is acceptable for the system to consider banners and offer different features to offenders depending on which banner they are flying when they interact with the system, then this is also acceptable. I personally would prefer a conversation that looks at the problem of selective enforcement across many spheres.