472

She told Swedish media that she will not be appealing the verdict.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 238 points 1 year ago

Let me get this straight:

  • Destroying the planet for profit: LEGAL
  • Peacefully suggesting they shouldn't: ILLEGAL

The law has nothing to do with morality, no matter what anyone tells you.

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Nobody has ever claimed laws are purely for morality.

[-] Perfide@reddthat.com 45 points 1 year ago

No, but there are tons of people who believe something is moral as long as it's legal, and even more people who believe something being illegal makes it inherently immoral.

[-] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or like the line of a song goes:

This is not a court of justice, son

this is a court of law

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Thomas Aquinas: Am I a joke to you

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Your proofs of God were repetitive and wrong.

[-] ccdfa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Then what is natural law theory?

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I am afraid you have this very straight :/ I am so sick of our corporate-fascist world order. Big corporations are basically the worst dictator you can imagine, but with money dedicated to a PR department.

[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, imagine a 2D graph with axes going from legal to illegal, and legitimate to illegitimate.

Some things are legal although they are illegitimate (like 'Destroying the planet'), and others are illegal although they are legitimate (like some forms of civil disobedience or sabotage).

In an ideal world the two are aligned, but ours is not ideal. Also worth noting legal-illegal is rather objective, while legitimate-illegitimate is rather subjective.

I found Thoreau interesting on the topic, who commented being jailed for withholding taxes to not support the war: "The bars are meant to separate bad from good people".

[-] letsgo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

/me does that unusual thing of actually reading the article ... ah, here we go "Protestors physically blocked oil tankers in the harbour... When the protestors were ordered to move to allow vehicles to pass, Greta was among those who refused. She was then dragged away by police."

So she wasn't peacefully protesting, which by the way IS legal in most places; she was being obstructive, somewhat like those Just Stop Oil muppets who glue themselves to roads. It's fine to protest. It's not fine to prevent others from living their lives, and that's why she was prosecuted.

We can stop oil when we have a better choice.

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

She was peacefully protesting. There was no violence involved. She refused to move. She didn't hurt or threaten anyone.

There's no dichotomy between peaceful and obstructive.

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
472 points (100.0% liked)

worldnews

4840 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

  2. No racism or bigotry.

  3. Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.

  4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

  5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS