@RTP
It should go without saying that I disagree with the motivations of the protest, but:
Perhaps you aren’t bothered. Perhaps you don’t care about activists. But this is an attack on you, too. It’s an attack on the democratic right to protest in which our freedoms are rooted. It’s an attack on the living world on which we all depend. I'll ignore the double-standard the media applies to other causes, but the sentiment is valid. We either have the right to protest or we don't. By denying the right of lunatics to protest, you allow them to be used to undermine everyone's right to protest.A corporation might apply to a court for an interim injunction. In doing so, it doesn’t need to prove any claims it makes.
...
Sometimes the final injunction is granted by a court within days; sometimes it can take years. In either case, the interim measure applies until the final injunction is granted.In theory, the judges would use...judgement on the injunctions. I agree with the premise that judges as a whole are biased and isolated from a great variety of problems. What kind of judicial reform would help? I have no idea. Lawfare is definitely a pay2win game.
To summarize, I agree that this tool is being abused and there should be a mechanism that ensures it isn't being used to limit what causes are allowed to protest.
I would argue though, that any cause (not just this one) that represents an existential threat to a particular industry or institution will find that institution hell-bent on using any advantage it can muster. This creates situations where there's very little space for neutrality because the choice is made binary: Either the industry/institution should exist or not. Knowing this, you can expect aligned institutions to act accordingly.
📡 RightToPrivacy & Tech Tips
Gabriel