It had little to do with the colour of their clothes and I highly doubt that was something the jury took into deliberation.
You are wrong about that:
In a significant victory for the government, jurors convicted eight defendants on material support for terrorism charges for wearing black clothes to the late-night demonstration. That use of “black bloc” clothing was an antifa tactic that assisted in the shooting of the officer, prosecutors said during their closing arguments.
ONE guy was charged and convicted on the weapons charges, but EIGHT defendants were convicted based on their black clothing.
They were also charged with concealing their 'zines. It seems like both the 'zines and the clothing would be strongly protected by the 1st Amendment. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Courts. I want to see how they feel about criminalizing particular colors, especially one like black, which SCOTUS likes to wear themselves.
Of course, traditionally, SCOTUS is supposed to be ANTIFA also.
You are wrong about that:
ONE guy was charged and convicted on the weapons charges, but EIGHT defendants were convicted based on their black clothing.
They were also charged with concealing their 'zines. It seems like both the 'zines and the clothing would be strongly protected by the 1st Amendment. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Courts. I want to see how they feel about criminalizing particular colors, especially one like black, which SCOTUS likes to wear themselves.
Of course, traditionally, SCOTUS is supposed to be ANTIFA also.