You are completely lost in space on this issue.
You seek to use lofty ideals to justify the furtherance of terrorism.
These people are networking to assassinate police officers. Police officers are the enforcement arm of the courts. Without them no justice exists. No laws are enforced resulting in anarchy.
Despite this, you see no reason why a judge would take offense to heralding and validating a terrorist group intent in part on destroying police officers.
You are way in over your head on this.
I've not justified the furtherance of terrorism, you are reading other things into what I've said.
These people are networking to assassinate police officers. Police officers are the enforcement arm of the courts. Without them no justice exists. No laws are enforced resulting in anarchy.
Irrelevant to the points I've brought up.
Despite this, you see no reason why a judge would take offense to heralding and validating a terrorist group intent in part on destroying police officers.
Who said that he'd have to herald and validate if he allowed them to express their opinion? Moreover, you seem to completely ignore the fact that the opposing lawyer should easily be able to call the other to the stand and ask them about the display to explain themselves to the jury… or do you disagree?