Just Stop Oil activists throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers after fellow protesters jailed
www.theguardian.com
Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022

This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.

The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    1014·
    3 months ago

    These people didn’t get a jury nullification, though, so clearly that doesn’t apply here. I don’t have a problem with all of their actions, just these that cause permanent or potentially permanent harm to historical artifacts.

    And I disagree with your premise that history and its artifacts are a worthy sacrifice for any cause; that’s how we get ignorant people and despots who weaponize that ignorance.

    Doing “something” doesn’t mean it’s effective or worthwhile. I could throw soup on a painting, or I could spray paint a billionaire’s mansion. I could paint Stonehenge, or I could sue the polluters. I could deface historical artifacts, or I could lobby a politician.

    What they did is so dumb, and while I appreciate people who want to see anything done, making the news isn’t some kind of event that will realistically “move the needle” and suddenly open the eyes of the ignorant.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
      123·
      3 months ago

      Even a single nullification is incredibly rare, but it’s happening enough that the government is making efforts to stamp out discussion of jury nullification.

      We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can’t weaponise the legal system against us anymore.

      It might even get to the point that they’re afraid to prosecute because they don’t want more nullifications to happen.

      Then what? What do the people in power do when they discover that they can no do that? They start to be afraid of what else people might nullify. What about actual violent actions, would people get a free pass then? How willing would they be to throw the cops against people when those people are starting to wake up to the fact that we outnumber them, and we don’t have to convict people if we don’t want to?

      When they’re afraid of that, you might start to see action. Or you might see more violent repression, at which point who knows what the next step will be, but it’s better than sitting around waiting for committees to decide that action must be taken which will then be ignored by those in power.

      And we get ignorant people and despots because people in power use propaganda to miseducate the public, not because art galleries close.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        44·
        3 months ago

        We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can’t weaponise the legal system against us anymore.

        I know what it is, but I do not agree that it’s the logical result, and we do not know for a fact that it will cause people to become activists as a result. What you’re essentially saying is that the governments will clamp down harder and harder, and The Free People will Unionize™! Meanwhile, we have contemporary and historical examples where that didn’t happen.

        So I reject your following premises as wishful thinking. The people in power aren’t scared of nullified juries, because judges can override juries, and the powers that be have the additional capability to use extrajudicial tactics while claiming plausible deniability in the public square.

        I understand and appreciate people’s desire to revolt—movies and books have made it appear very romantic—but activists are not going to change the world without the power of the governments. They would be better served by running for office rather than running from the State.

    • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
      146·
      3 months ago

      I could throw soup on a painting,

      Yes, evidently they managed to do it

      or I could spray paint a billionaire’s mansion.

      You’d get arrested before ever reaching the wall.

      I could paint Stonehenge,

      Yes, evidently

      or I could sue the polluters.

      In the court the polluters have stacked themselves? Let me know how that goes. The polluters have more money and lawyers than you.

      The people deciding the laws are bought.

      I could deface historical artifacts,

      Yes

      or I could lobby a politician.

      What with all the millions you just have laying around? Lol get real.

      I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry. Why don’t all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well? I understand feeling disappointed if one ever gets destroyed, but you seem much more agitated than that. That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        610·
        3 months ago

        I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry.

        I told you why. It’s not my fault you refuse to read.

        Why don’t all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well?

        Because “time” isn’t a conscious agent.

        That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.

        You mean like throwing soup on a painting, accomplishing nothing, and getting a prison sentence? Lol

        Edit: clarified a word.