Not really sure what to put here…I usually put relevant excerpts, but that got this post deleted for doing that

  • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    My eyes don’t define crime. That’s not how it works. The law defines it. And the court looks at the law. I’m not a child so I understand this.

      • Halosheep@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ethically no, legally yes?

        That's sort of just how laws work. Legal doesn't mean good.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, that's what makes her brave. We just don't say she was arrested for "speaking truth to power" or any other sensational nonsense. We say she was arrested for the crime she committed because it makes you think about why that's even a crime.

        Honestly, I believe the vast majority of effective and meaningful protests will involve a crime. Usually, some form of vandalism/trespassing all the way up to theft. We hope not violence against people but sometimes counter protests force hands.

        I just think it's important to own it (I mean, dont confess and get yourself arrested needlessly LOL) because that's part of the deal. Things rarely happen when everyone is nice and cordial.

        • Longpork_afficianado@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So why do we need to differentiate between "arrested for exposing abuse" and "arrested for breaking unjust laws in the process of exposing abuse"?