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 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.