Just Stop Oil vandals get hard time for throwing soup on van Gogh painting

I went to the Just Stop Oil web site and boy oh boy are they having a cow. They seem to think the sentences these jokers got are a human rights travesty equivalent to throwing Mother Theresa in prison.
 
Last edited:
This is what they are dealing with :
Plummer, representing herself, told the hearing: "My choice today is to accept whatever sentence I receive with a smile.

"It is not just myself being sentenced today, or my co-defendants, but the foundations of democracy itself."
 
nomas said:
This is what they are dealing with :
Plummer, representing herself, told the hearing: "My choice today is to accept whatever sentence I receive with a smile.

"It is not just myself being sentenced today, or my co-defendants, but the foundations of democracy itself."
Click to expand...
So sanctimonious and full of themselves.
 
nomas said:
The Europeans seem to be more tolerant of thuggish behavior . Sadly the U.S. seems to be heading that way .
Click to expand...
It already happens here. When people were “protesting” police brutality it wasn’t done by going to police stations to protest and face those they were accusing. It was done by rioting and looting private citizens who had nothing to do with it. And plenty of people got away with it.
 
nomas said:
This is what they are dealing with :
Plummer, representing herself, told the hearing: "My choice today is to accept whatever sentence I receive with a smile.

"It is not just myself being sentenced today, or my co-defendants, but the foundations of democracy itself."
Click to expand...
So, democracy is about the expression of ideas though vandalism?

Not exactly what I thought it was…
 
The painting has no significance other than it's famous. This was just a publicity stunt to raise awareness of their cause. If these stunts were starved of publicity they would stop doing them. They need to be treated like the petulant children that they are.

This is how to do it:

A few of them invaded a Porsche showroom and glued themselves to the cars or the floor, the management just closed the showroom, put the lights out and left them there. They weren't happy that no one could see see their protests and then complained they couldn't go to the bathroom.

I love that approach, what ever they glue themselves to just leave them there until they shed a layer of skin. Erect a tent around them to block them from public view. Nothing to see here folks.
 
I thought it was a reproduction at first but it appears to be the real thing. I'm amazed it's not protected by some thin plexiglass sheet within the frame or something.
 
dnewton3 said:
Specifically, protesters who are largely disruptive/destructive achieve two things:
- the do call attention to their cause; it's hard to ignore these morons
- they make me not care about their cause, and hold them in disdain

When someone peacefully protests within the confines of the law, I'm 100% all-in for free speech and open dialogue, even if I disagree with the movement (whatever it may be). But when you decide that your version of "civil disobedience" is somehow more important than another person's right to do something (topic X, Y or Z), then you've crossed the line from civil to criminal behavior. Once you're a criminal, I have little interest in your cause and no time for your shenanigans. I no longer care about what you care about, and in fact, you've turned me into an adversary, if only to counter your arrogant behavior.
Click to expand...
I think the likes of Mr. Jefferson et al might have an issue with this. Some laws are immoral, wrong, and/or unconstitutional. Breaking certain laws in certain ways may technically be criminal behavior, but that doesn’t make it worthy of ignoring a cause. Rosa Parks broke the law. Lawmakers are not gods; they are fallible, imperfect humans capable of immoral behavior themselves.

Note it also doesn’t make the behavior here ok at all. I think the answer is, “it’s complicated and nuanced.”
 
goingplacesanddoingstuff said:
I think the likes of Mr. Jefferson et al might have an issue with this. Some laws are immoral, wrong, and/or unconstitutional. Breaking certain laws in certain ways may technically be criminal behavior, but that doesn’t make it worthy of ignoring a cause. Rosa Parks broke the law. Lawmakers are not gods; they are fallible, imperfect humans capable of immoral behavior themselves.

Note it also doesn’t make the behavior here ok at all. I think the answer is, “it’s complicated and nuanced.”
Click to expand...

In concept I understand your point. But it's lost in translation regarding this topic we discuss here.

There is a huge difference between deplorably immoral laws (Jim Crow laws, for example) versus protecting property rights (don't destroy someone else's property) or safety laws (don't stand in traffic; could cause deaths to pedestrians and motorists alike).

In this case (attempting to alter/destroy property of another), it's criminal for good reason. There's no moral outrage worthy of them purposely spilling soup on a known work of art. If that is the litmus test we would accept (that the individual's emotional preferences are all that is needed to justify one's actions), then would it also be OK for me to beat the person with a bat, or shoot them because I like my ICE vehicles and enjoy eating beef? Of course not. Your point is salient, but not in this situation. Morally corrupt laws should fall to the pressures of civil unrest. But this is simply a matter of property rights. Self-indulgent idiots don't have a right to destroy my property or restrict my travel simply because they don't like what I do, so they can make a point and get on the news. If that were the case, it's gonna be a fast ride into the abyss of "winner take all" incivility.
 
dnewton3 said:
In concept I understand your point. But it's lost in translation regarding this topic we discuss here.

There is a huge difference between deplorably immoral laws (Jim Crow laws, for example) versus protecting property rights (don't destroy someone else's property) or safety laws (don't stand in traffic; could cause deaths to pedestrians and motorists alike).

In this case (attempting to alter/destroy property of another), it's criminal for good reason. There's no moral outrage worthy of them purposely spilling soup on a known work of art. If that is the litmus test we would accept (that the individual's emotional preferences are all that is needed to justify one's actions), then would it also be OK for me to beat the person with a bat, or shoot them because I like my ICE vehicles and enjoy eating beef? Of course not. Your point is salient, but not in this situation. Morally corrupt laws should fall to the pressures of civil unrest. But this is simply a matter of property rights. Self-indulgent idiots don't have a right to destroy my property or restrict my travel simply because they don't like what I do, so they can make a point and get on the news. If that were the case, it's gonna be a fast ride into the abyss of "winner take all" incivility.
Click to expand...
I agree. I do think there’s a full spectrum of potential civil disobedience scenarios that fall on varying degrees of acceptability, depending on who you are. The OG Tea Partiers, for example, destroyed property. Were they acting morally? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Is a family farmer dumping cow manure on a government lawn to protest policies which favor giant corporate farms an illegal act? Almost certainly. Is it immoral? That depends on the details.

In the soup thrower scenario there’s basically no connection between the act and the cause. It’s wanton destruction of historically significant works of humanity for attention. In my opinion that detracts significantly from any argument for “legitimate” civil disobedience, if that is even a thing. They got exactly what they deserved.
 
Last edited:
Here's some destruction for protests

Boston_Tea_Party_w.webp
 
Astro14 said:
At that age, I was flying a multi-million dollar airplane in the US Navy.

I was accountable for my actions.

They are not “kids”, despite what their behaviour would suggest.
Click to expand...
I seen a TV show where Jesse Ventura was talking about being a Navy SEAL at the age of 19 and going to war but he couldn't come back home and buy a beer. I think there has to be an age where people just know better and if they don't they better learn real fast onto your flight experience, you might have been flying a multi-million dollar aircraft but the plane was doing the hard work LOL. I'm sure glad you made it home to tell the stories that only a few could understand and the rest of us could Marvel at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
ripcord said:
Wow!!! Just saw this pop up... three more Just Stop Oil protesters just threw soup on that same van Gogh painting in response to the sentencing. Talk about sanctimonious, self righteous people.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why the public just let them do it?
Many people I know would have executed a 'citizens arrest'
 
Revving2Redline said:
I seen a TV show where Jesse Ventura was talking about being a Navy SEAL at the age of 19 and going to war but he couldn't come back home and buy a beer.
Click to expand...

Can't have a toaster in the barracks either. At 18 we can vote and die for our country but we aren't mature enough to toast bread or buy tobacco/alcohol. It is a fed law for alcohol and tobacco though....

At one point last decade we couldn't have tattoos larger than the palm of your hand. We can thank General Anu....I mean General Amos for that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom