This sounds really bad and I’m afraid it’s even worse than it sounds.
For example, end of 2022 Italy introduced a law which bans certain types of harmless assemblies (rave parties) of more than 50 people (participants can be put to jail for up to 6 years). This is paving the road for cutting possibilities of people to protest against their government. (Imagine, there is a a protest and somebody plays music. The government will see a rave party.) Yet the Italian government seems to have no problem with 3000 neofascists visiting the hometown of Mussolini.
And now this.
This isn’t completely true. The right of assembly is a constitutional right in Italy within small limits (the assembly must be peaceful, without firearms, and requires a notice to local authorities if it uses a public space, see art. 17.
Now, I don’t believe that a rave party falls within those protections as it isn’t protected speech (and I don’t believe there is a place where it is).
Italy will continue to have protests and marched, usually with music because Italy.
I think the argument is more that the government could use these laws to categorise a protest with music (lawful) as a rave (unlawful) and arrest those involved, thus discouraging further protests.
I appreciate it’s a bit of a slippery slope argument, I was just clarifying the parent comment’s argument. I’m not sure how much your retort adds to the argument though.
This sounds really bad and I’m afraid it’s even worse than it sounds. For example, end of 2022 Italy introduced a law which bans certain types of harmless assemblies (rave parties) of more than 50 people (participants can be put to jail for up to 6 years). This is paving the road for cutting possibilities of people to protest against their government. (Imagine, there is a a protest and somebody plays music. The government will see a rave party.) Yet the Italian government seems to have no problem with 3000 neofascists visiting the hometown of Mussolini. And now this.
This isn’t completely true. The right of assembly is a constitutional right in Italy within small limits (the assembly must be peaceful, without firearms, and requires a notice to local authorities if it uses a public space, see art. 17.
Now, I don’t believe that a rave party falls within those protections as it isn’t protected speech (and I don’t believe there is a place where it is).
Italy will continue to have protests and marched, usually with music because Italy.
I think the argument is more that the government could use these laws to categorise a protest with music (lawful) as a rave (unlawful) and arrest those involved, thus discouraging further protests.
deleted by creator
I appreciate it’s a bit of a slippery slope argument, I was just clarifying the parent comment’s argument. I’m not sure how much your retort adds to the argument though.
It isn’t a slippery slope if you are on it, it is just a slope.
I really hope so.