Hacker News Reader

> There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally.

The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.

How is that relevant? No one is talking about the Constitution. Neither I nor the parent comments I responded to ever mentioned that Strugis rally should have been shutdown by the government. We can criticize something or point out that it shouldn't have happened without us needing to have the Supreme Court weigh in.

From a moral perspective, getting people killed in order to have some fun is less defensible than getting people killed in support of civil rights. I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.

> How is that relevant?

The relevance is obvious.

How are the first amendment protections on the right to protest not an explicit distinction?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These are enumerations, not distinctions. One person's right to protest is not of any more importance than another's right to associate freely at a motorcycle rally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com