“The painting itself was unharmed, but the 17th-century frame sustained some damage after the soup acted as paint stripper on the delicate surface.”
So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?
Time to lock originals away from the public forever.
Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!
More like “you see your honor, he was behind a 10-foot-thick wall of lead, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was safe all along!”
So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?
Time to lock originals away from the public forever.
Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!
Either way, the actual honourable judge wasn’t impressed by that argument, weren’t they?
https://www.politico.eu/article/just-stop-oil-protesters-jailed-throwing-soup-van-gogh-sunflowers-climate-activists/
You making my example more ridiculous just proofs my point even more.
Oh well, we all know that honourable judges always make morally good decisions, don’t we?
Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that’s exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.