I'm asking you to justify there not being a big difference between allowing people to protest in favor of equal civil rights and people marching in favor of genocide/deportation/racial segregation. I'm aware of what the law is, I'm asking for a moral justification of that law.
Okay, let's rate them on Haidt's six moral foundations, then.
* - "Purity" here is a semi-misnomer. It doesn't mean ethnic or racial purity; it means more "sanctity" or "axiomaticness" of some beliefs. Are some morals so basic as to be unquestionable? Most people say that there are, but not everyone agrees on what they are.
|Foundation ||Civil Rights Protest||Segregation March|
|Care||No short-term increase in care.|
Potential to harm the immediate environment with litter.
Potential to change long-term awareness about helping the less fortunate.
|No short-term increase in care.|
Potential for violence to break out.
Potential for short-term psychological harm to nearby people on the other side of the issue.
If one side can do it, so can the other side.
Potential decrease in racial or cultural loyalty.
Demonstration of racial loyalty, with potential increase.
Plea to authority to change things.
Potential increase in authority manipulation.
No plea to authority.
Furtherance of the belief that fairness is important.
Furtherance of the belief that loyalty is important.
Restrictions placed on who can use a public space until the protest is over. Could be indefinite.
Marches are typically short and put less restrictions on public space.
Now. In terms of the Care and Fairness foundations, there's no question; the civil rights protest is way more moral than the segregationist march. In terms of Loyalty, Authority, and Liberty, though, a shorter, less environmentally-impacting march has the upper hand in terms of morals. Purity is a push - it mainly matters whether the individual who is judging values Fairness (in its Mercy form, as opposed to its Justice form) over Loyalty, or vice versa.