[dirtboy]

That's open for discussion, if a person has nothing else to do. Certainly a case can be made that destroying property to make a political statement is wrong, and an additional case can be made that destroying property to make a political statement is counterproductive. A separate case can be made for the principle that a person who breaks the law to make a political statement should expect to face legal consequences. All these cases stand or fall independently of the content of the political views stated.

It's pretty sad that you failed to raise the case that standing up to tyranny was a higher principle than any of the offenses you cited.

[Tax-chick]

You may be sad if you like. In my opinion, “standing up to tyranny” is too vague a principle to be unquestioningly prioritized over all others.

My teenagers think they’re “standing up to tyranny” when they eat all the ice cream we had planned for everyone to share, or leave a mess in the bathroom and their clothes all over the floor. Students think they’re “standing up to tyranny” when they agitate for the “right” to attend class naked, pay no fees, or have curriculum requirements relaxed.

Much political protest is at no greater a level of maturity than that. Why should it be considered so superior as to override, without question, considerations of universal morality?