I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you’re left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn’t creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It’s not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one’s position is not “it’s okay for me to do this but not for you”, but rather “it isn’t really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it”.
I guess the point of my argument isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.
One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don’t believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did… Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.
I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you’re left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn’t creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It’s not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one’s position is not “it’s okay for me to do this but not for you”, but rather “it isn’t really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it”.
I guess the point of my argument isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.
One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don’t believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did… Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.