the conversation isn't really about whether blm is organized enough to be a terrorist organization, and more about what happens if it's classified as one. the natural conclusion is that the federal government now has a stated compelling government interest in preventing and quashing blm protests under the pretense that they constitute terrorist acts, or at the very least that they exist in order to commit terrorist acts. i feel like the dangers of categorically stifling protests by virtue of message and label alone should be pretty self-evidently dangerous to expression rights in america. it amounts to a
heckler's veto, that because violence can arise as a result of or during the course of an act of expression, that it should be sufficient reason to prevent that expression in the first place.
there's no reason this logical line couldn't be drawn on the other side as well. white supremacists routinely commit mass shootings and assaults, doesn't that meet this burden as well? in either case, you'd have to be pretty deluded to believe that white supremacists or blm protesters are actually conspiring on the highest levels commit widespread acts of extreme violence anyway. it's nothing more than a desire to suppress the movement, regardless of what motivates that desire