I really think you have this one wrong. The placard example does not seem likely or sensible, so I will use another, more likely one. I mentioned my equipment on the ranch. That includes a bulldozer. There are plenty of people right now in my state who believe that disabling or burning bulldozers are a form of protest. If those people would ask me, I could tell them that we use this equipment to repair damage from erosion as part of our effort to restore the prairie and forest. But I won’t get a chance to explain that, and I should not have to. It is already illegal to trespass on my land and burn my bulldozer. Arguing that doing it because of “protest” should make it acceptable or legal is just not sensible.
Maybe another, better way to think of it would be to imagine what tactics you would find acceptable if used by people on the opposite side. This is very important to do, because that sort of change happens. But I can use an example from the present. Think about the nutty religious abortion protesters. They would like nothing better than have their protest rights extended to[quote=“anon50609448, post:54, topic:100509”]
doing things that are otherwise illegal
[/quote]
like “willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations of the facility” , to borrow from the text of the Oklahoma law.
You have to assume that the tactics that can be legally used by activists that you agree with will also be used by activists that you oppose.
1 Like
