Contrast this with the post someone else made today about Mark Houck. That guy shoved someone affiliated with an abortion clinic after the dude got in his minor child's face and screamed obscenities. They sent over 25 FBI agents with guns drawn to his house to arrest him under the same law.

Now here's the Rolling Stone on the crimes committed by people on the other side of the debate: "it's just a little arson and property damage man. What's the big deal, man?"

Personally, I oppose all these laws that make things "more illegal". The crime is arson; I don't give a shit why you did it. Likewise, I don't care if you killed someone in a botched robbery or killed them because they were some minority that you didn't like. The crime is murder, and the why isn't really relevant.

They're ultimately just a back door way to criminalize thoughts and beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment. And that's why the Rolling Stone wrote an article about how "wrong" it is to apply the FACE act here: it was obviously intended to target anti-abortion activists, and it's only a fluke that it's being applied to their side instead.

Contrast this with the post someone else made today about Mark Houck. That guy shoved someone affiliated with an abortion clinic after the dude got in his minor child's face and screamed obscenities. They sent over 25 FBI agents with guns drawn to his house to arrest him under the same law.

Now here's the Rolling Stone on the crimes committed by people on the other side of the debate: "it's just a little arson and property damage man. What's the big deal, man?"

Personally, I oppose all these laws that make things "more illegal". The crime is arson; I don't give a shit why you did it. Likewise, I don't care if you killed someone in a botced robbery or killed them because they were some minority that you didn't like. The crime is murder, and the why isn't really relevant.

They're ultimately just a back door way to criminalize thoughts and beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment. And that's why they're Rolling Stone wrote an article about how "wrong" it is to apply the FACE act here: it was obviously intended to target anti-abortion activists, and it's only a fluke that it's being applied to their side instead.