4 ms·

>found guilty of causing criminal damage exceeding £5,000 [...] although the painting was protected by glass and was unharmed incredible

by ruined 2y ago

pvaldes 2y ago
why incredible? Somebody disrupting the normal activity from a museum is not different than somebody going to Google and unplugging a server. Even if the server is not damaged, the owner can be losing millions each hour that the server is out of service. After each attack, the museum must close for a while and check if everything is correct in the other rooms also. The picture must be removed, cleaned by paid specialists, somebody must verify that its integrity has not being compromised and that nothing is slowly leaking under the glass. Insurance staff must come and write a report. Policemen must lose hours of work and write reports also. There is a clear, measurable, and verifiable lose on ticket revenue for the museum. And the museum is not even responsible for the fact that people use cars!. I don't know how much the Louvre earns each day, but those £5,000 for weeks or months of not having the Monalissa available for display seems a value too low to me.
- abeppu 2y ago
  > After each attack, the museum must close for a while This was the National Gallery in London, which I believe doesn't charge for admission because it's a public institution. But ... did the National Gallery actually close after these incidents, when just one painting was attacked and not actually damaged? That would seem to be an overreaction. In any case, I think a lost revenue justification for the damages along these lines seems kinda silly. Rather the judge seems to have believed that the damage is to society overall: > our culpability is at level A. You did reconnaissance and planning and talked to a journalist. Your harm is at category 1, which means extreme harm to society. > There is nothing peaceful or nonviolent about throwing soup. Throwing soup in someone’s face is violent. I think the problem with a legal system that treats throwing soup as violence and not damaging a painting as causing damage is that this flattening perspective only incentivizes activists to go big or go home. If you're going to be sentenced as if you did damage even when you did not ... then you may as well try to destroy the painting next time. If you're going to be treated by the legal system as if you committed a violent crime when you threw soup at an enclosed painting ... then maybe next time you should actually commit real violence. Note, it sounds like being convicted of battery in the UK only gets you up to a maximum of 6 months. So you could physically accost people and get a much shorter sentence than these soup-throwers. https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sentences-assault-gbh/ https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sente...
  - ruined 2y ago
    i can say that observationally, this just-do-the-crime reasoning is real. over the past couple decades, many american activists have realized that demonstrating certain political positions is dangerous, even if the demonstration itself and each individual participant is lawful. so now there's a broad activist culture that encourages independent militant action against productive capital, general infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes!
    - abeppu 2y ago
      Though, I guess to ground this a little: I can say that observationally, this just-do-the-emissions reasoning is real. Over the past several decades, many industrialized individuals and groups have realized that pushing certain harmful chemicals into the environment is lawful almost regardless of the amount. So now there's a broad emitter culture that encourages independent destructive action against productive ecosystems and planetary systems, threatening the long term viability of public infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes! The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. These soup-throwers are being charged, but Exxon/BP/Chevron are never charged with manslaughter or even reckless endangerment when a heatwave or hurricane which would not have happened but for climate change claims its many victims.
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        > The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. two wrongs don't make a right. "Bob shoot at me, therefore I can rape Lisa?". Sorry, but I'm not buying that BS.
        abeppu 2y ago
        No one is claiming two wrongs don't make a right. I'm certainly not saying these activists should have no punishment (and they know that they're risking prosecution when they undertake their actions). But we should also be keenly aware that the emitters that causing a giant and growing crisis which has already killed a bunch of people and will kill many more in the future are not facing any punishment, and this should be at least as significant a story as 2 people getting 2 years for throwing soup.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > There is a clear, measurable, and verifiable lose on ticket revenue for the museum No. It's the National Gallery: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit > And the museum is not even responsible for the fact that people use cars!. That same page I cited has driving/parking directions to the museum.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    If they have a shop with products from the museum, there is still a lose of revenue
baggy_trough 2y ago
The painting was thankfully unharmed but there was significant damage to the frame.
loco5niner 2y ago
That actually sounds pretty low for the amount of labor and trouble they caused.

>found guilty of causing criminal damage exceeding £5,000 [...] although the painting was protected by glass and was unharmed incredible

by ruined 2y ago

>found guilty of causing criminal damage exceeding £5,000 [...] although the painting was protected by glass and was unharmed incredible

pvaldes 2y ago

why incredible? Somebody disrupting the normal activity from a museum is not different than somebody going to Google and unplugging a server. Even if the server is not damaged, the owner can be losing millions each hour that the server is out of service. After each attack, the museum must close for a while and check if everything is correct in the other rooms also. The picture must be removed, cleaned by paid specialists, somebody must verify that its integrity has not being compromised and that nothing is slowly leaking under the glass. Insurance staff must come and write a report. Policemen must lose hours of work and write reports also. There is a clear, measurable, and verifiable lose on ticket revenue for the museum. And the museum is not even responsible for the fact that people use cars!. I don't know how much the Louvre earns each day, but those £5,000 for weeks or months of not having the Monalissa available for display seems a value too low to me.

abeppu 2y ago
> After each attack, the museum must close for a while This was the National Gallery in London, which I believe doesn't charge for admission because it's a public institution. But ... did the National Gallery actually close after these incidents, when just one painting was attacked and not actually damaged? That would seem to be an overreaction. In any case, I think a lost revenue justification for the damages along these lines seems kinda silly. Rather the judge seems to have believed that the damage is to society overall: > our culpability is at level A. You did reconnaissance and planning and talked to a journalist. Your harm is at category 1, which means extreme harm to society. > There is nothing peaceful or nonviolent about throwing soup. Throwing soup in someone’s face is violent. I think the problem with a legal system that treats throwing soup as violence and not damaging a painting as causing damage is that this flattening perspective only incentivizes activists to go big or go home. If you're going to be sentenced as if you did damage even when you did not ... then you may as well try to destroy the painting next time. If you're going to be treated by the legal system as if you committed a violent crime when you threw soup at an enclosed painting ... then maybe next time you should actually commit real violence. Note, it sounds like being convicted of battery in the UK only gets you up to a maximum of 6 months. So you could physically accost people and get a much shorter sentence than these soup-throwers. https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sentences-assault-gbh/ https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/punishment-sente...
- ruined 2y ago
  i can say that observationally, this just-do-the-crime reasoning is real. over the past couple decades, many american activists have realized that demonstrating certain political positions is dangerous, even if the demonstration itself and each individual participant is lawful. so now there's a broad activist culture that encourages independent militant action against productive capital, general infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes!
  - abeppu 2y ago
    Though, I guess to ground this a little: I can say that observationally, this just-do-the-emissions reasoning is real. Over the past several decades, many industrialized individuals and groups have realized that pushing certain harmful chemicals into the environment is lawful almost regardless of the amount. So now there's a broad emitter culture that encourages independent destructive action against productive ecosystems and planetary systems, threatening the long term viability of public infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes! The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. These soup-throwers are being charged, but Exxon/BP/Chevron are never charged with manslaughter or even reckless endangerment when a heatwave or hurricane which would not have happened but for climate change claims its many victims.
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      > The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. two wrongs don't make a right. "Bob shoot at me, therefore I can rape Lisa?". Sorry, but I'm not buying that BS.
      - abeppu 2y ago
        No one is claiming two wrongs don't make a right. I'm certainly not saying these activists should have no punishment (and they know that they're risking prosecution when they undertake their actions). But we should also be keenly aware that the emitters that causing a giant and growing crisis which has already killed a bunch of people and will kill many more in the future are not facing any punishment, and this should be at least as significant a story as 2 people getting 2 years for throwing soup.
drewcoo 2y ago
> There is a clear, measurable, and verifiable lose on ticket revenue for the museum No. It's the National Gallery: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visiting/plan-your-visit > And the museum is not even responsible for the fact that people use cars!. That same page I cited has driving/parking directions to the museum.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  If they have a shop with products from the museum, there is still a lose of revenue

baggy_trough 2y ago

The painting was thankfully unharmed but there was significant damage to the frame.

loco5niner 2y ago

That actually sounds pretty low for the amount of labor and trouble they caused.