But think about who else could be accused of trying to “influence govt policy by intimidation or coercion.”
This could EASILY extent to, say, BLM protests.
And we already see a push to describe BLM and antifa (which has killed no one) as dangerous, violent groups.
So why do we need these laws? According to Lawfare, for the messaging: lawfareblog.com/its-time-congr…
But again, see the double edge here: this would allow a Trump DOJ to table BLM “terroristic.”
This is about symbolism. Symbolism that is easily redirected in problematic directions.
Criminal laws will inevitably be written broadly, and that breadth will inevitably mean they will expand their reach.