3 ms·
You have a point but we are literally talking about an association whose entire and only raison d'etre is to perpetuate violent crime. Maybe it shouldn't be out
by Llamamoe 1y ago
You have a point but we are literally talking about an association whose entire and only raison d'etre is to perpetuate violent crime. Maybe it shouldn't be outright criminal, since people can potentially register for other reasons than to participate, but it definitely should at least be under scrutiny.
- Xelbair 1y agoThe same reasoning could be used against civil rights movement. That's why we don't do that, if our systems are functioning fine.
- hnbad 1y agoCould be? You should look into the history of the Black Panthers. The US government doesn't need to make membership illegal to suppress and destroy political movements.
- ricardobeat 1y agoI don’t mean to defend people joining groups committing any kind of violence, but this is the kind of rhetoric being used by the far-right against their opponents, not only in the US; it is a terrible idea to allow policing based on “assumed intent”.
- the_other 1y agoIt's the same direction of travel as recent UK laws allowing police to stop people preparing to join protests if they think the accused might be planning to e.g. glue themselves to something. IMO this is basically policing thought crimes. It worries me.
- Llamamoe 1y agoRhetoric can be used to justify any action against any group on very arbitrary pretenses, and while I don't think "groups whose primary reason for existing is explicitly to facilitate crime should be closely scrutinized" is particularly dystopian, you're probably right that it could provide a good starting point for a slippery slope of criminalising association with political opposition :/
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]