[weakfish]

Yeah, I think a key point here is recognizing that the law isn’t always aligned with morality, depending on the issue you’re protesting for/against.

[liontwist]

How would you feel if your political opponents made similar justifications? Are they laws for the thee and not for me?

[weakfish]

I think you misunderstood me. My point is not that the law should align perfectly with my morality, it’s that in a functional democracy, there will _always_ be parties that have a moral position that does not align with the law. I believe it should be legal for them to protest, but in many cases it is not (speaking globally, not just in the USA). So I think it is good for protesters to be able to protect themselves, because my aspiration is that anyone who disagrees with the state should be able to make their voice heard.

So yes, to answer your question, I think my political opponents should be able to protest. If the state doesn’t allow them to, I am fine with them using tools to protect themselves legally.

The line I draw this at is violence and looting from innocents.

It seems you phrased your response as a “gotcha” but I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make?

[lesuorac]

IIUC, the parent [1] is talking about 2 scenarios going on

1. If you're planning to commit arson you want to have encrypted radios to not get caught.

2. If you're planning a peaceful protest at a location somebody might commit arson you want an encrypted radio so you don't get unfairly punished.

I don't think anybody is arguing that (1) is desirable. They're arguing that the people involved with (2) shouldn't be punished for (1)'s crimes.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42833935

[weakfish]

Agree, nobody (at least not I) is suggesting the former