Sounds like we're conflating illegitimate and illegal. Rereading the replies in this thread, that's where many of the disagreements focus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Some protesting may be illegal, and some wars may be illegitimate, but the idea that protests shouldn't have any costs is so far beyond unreasonable. What if 74% of the public were to protest the war by buying only 50% of the gas they'd normally buy? Would you have the oil company sue the people for lost potential profits? Of course not. You see, just as MM said, that's absurd.
|
That's not an entirely apt analogy, will. Not buying a product is not the same thing as preventing the company from transporting it in an open area (detaining the ship) and defacing their property, which will require expensive paint and manhours to fix.
Mixed - it's not exactly that I think money trumps conscience, but I do think that the financial penalties should flow both ways. Labeling something a "protest" shouldn't be a license to damage property, break the law, and cause financial havoc without compensation. After all, who's in the position of determining which protests are legitimate. What if it was Exxon protesting Shell's market practices? Do THEY get a pass?
Some of you may blow this off because it looks obvious on the surface, but I'm not so sure that I see anything greater than a difference of degree.