Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next law: protest as much as you want but out of sight. In your own cellar maybe? Ok that was sarcasm, but the very point of a protest is to be visible. Same with all Last Generation or such protests: if they had simply marched on some side street, nobody would talk about them today.
> the very point of a protest is to be visible. And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people. But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?
I would argue the conclusion to that isn't that they don't have a valid point, but that the people cannot be sufficiently motivated, or that they are unsure how to protest effectively, or that they are unaware that disrupting often leaves people feeling disrupted, that feeling disrupted is not a positive feeling, and that associating Negativity with a movement too many times can really hurt it in the long run. Just look at the cultures idea of PETA in the USA.