Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's

Not to point out the obvious, but this works both ways. For example, it would place the organisers of Charlotsville in a similar predicament, except that it's not in one of the states mentioned. Also, to be clear, they haven't said he -is- liable, just that the case can proceed. It still has to be evaluated on merit. (at least at the lower court level.) Underlying all of this is the root issue that all to often protests, on both sides of the spectrum, contain violence and property destruction. All too often without any consequences. Does this create a chilling effect on protests? Absolutely. Will it mean more accountability for violence and destruction? Possibly. Would this encourage organisers to emphasise to followers the importance of -peaceful- protest? Maybe. (Will it incentivize false-flag activities? Probably.) I lean on the side of this being "bad" overall, but its a very nuanced issue.