OTOH, the megaphone toting, Kill White-y, crowd would be liable for inciting violence, the old term.
The BIG difference is that MLK specifically called for non-violent protesting.
BLM’s stated goals were to destroy things.
“Under a legal theory blessed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, King could have been held liable for the unanticipated harm that ensued from that March 1968 protest, even though he neither directed nor advocated vandalism or violence.”
We’re beyond that theory. Now the Leftists OPENLY endorse violence, starting with Congress.
MLK was a damn commie.
careful what you wish for
a negligence test would most likely be applied unevenly going forward
with the tyranny of selective prosecution
it will be applied to the right
to the left not so much
boycott leader Charles Evers had endorsed violence, saying, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.” The Court nevertheless ruled that Evers could not be sued for damages suffered by white business owners.
The ruling is definitely a double edges sword. The left will use it to intimidate any protests whatsoever. In case anyone has not noticed they get to decide when they apply it when they don’t. And they only apply it to one side.
He’s a militant, gay, black supremacist. Would anyone be defending him if he were a straight, white neo-nazi? Opposite sides of the same disgusting coin.
BLM does not protest peacefully.