Quote:
Originally Posted by bots
@ Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down |
Deleting or penalizing a single post wouldn't have an effect as it doesn't create the opportunity for violence. The bigger impacts would be from arresting people known for destroying public property and attacking citizens and making that public. In many places, criminals get enhancements to charges when you touch a civil servant or property, so it would be harder to quickly release them at that level. That's more than a good enough deterrent without the effect of being controversial in a way that possibly creates
more dissidents.
People who riot already have the mentality to create public disorder... they're looking for protests with lax security and victims that are sitting ducks or who are surrounded by people who won't intervene and maybe even will participate. That's why when we have even small protests here, we almost immediately schedule people right away who are trained in riots and have access to riot gear because any potential is high enough.
The rioters are not waiting and sitting around checking X to see if anyone even agrees with them... that would imply that if one had enough people disagreeing with them, that speech alone could disable what they're already capable of. Instead, they're just looking for the best opportunity and none of that has to do with people posting negative comments online...
My opinion is they likely punished her to compensate for the fact they let it get out of control in the first place. It has the effect of chilling speech, but it doesn't just chill speech around the support of the riots, it also shuts down the criticism of law enforcement because it appeases enough of the right people that they'll become vocal supporters for govt.