4 ms·

I wasn't fully aware of how the US law would apply in that situation. Thanks for the clarity. I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a g

I wasn't fully aware of how the US law would apply in that situation. Thanks for the clarity. I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. It is a morally ropey area when you're law enforcement engaging with groups that threaten the freedom and stability of wider society. But I suppose that's why warrants and such safeguards exist.

pessimizer 4y ago
> I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. I don't believe this is true if you give even individual representatives of law enforcement the latitude to decide whether religious groups threaten the freedom and stability of wider society (and especially if you think that the Nation of Islam, an inwardly-focused group that I'm not aware of either imprisoning or destabilizing society, meets that bar.) Not only that, but even assuming that they would have the latitude, as individuals, to act against them. Is "not liking white people for outer space reasons" or "being anti-Semitic, but not hurting Jews" enough of a reason for you to actually support improvised state-supported aggression by individual cops? Is that the model case in your mind where the state acting arbitrarily is for the good?