2 ms·
> Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Was this your claim or your description of someone else's claim? You and t
by pseudalopex 1y ago
> Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions.
Was this your claim or your description of someone else's claim?
You and the ICEBlock developer compared it to Waze. People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them.
- ajross 1y ago> People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them. Exactly! So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? Y'know, peaceably assembling and petitioning for redress of grievances and all? You don't maybe see a first amendment argument here? Upthread commenter dropped "malicious" to imply something presumably worse, like threats to law enforcement officers that haven't been made. But if it's just about protest then we have a prior restraint on speech. And that's worse.
- pseudalopex 1y ago> So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? I questioned the claim ICEBlock was intended clearly for protest.