[otterley]

There are lots of ways to protest, and plenty of them don’t involve impeding others or trespassing on private property to make their point. We have parks and government centers and sidewalks they can do it in. Your right to protest does not supersede the rights of others.

And these are (were) employees and it’s quite likely Google already has established mechanisms for hearing employee grievances. Google’s not going to allow a small but vocal and disruptive group to override those existing mechanisms, nor would any serious business.

[saulpw]

It isn't nice to block the doorway

It isn't nice to go to jail

There are nicer ways to do it

But the nice ways always fail

- Malvina Reynolds, "It Isn't Nice"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWkV2QpgQo

[otterley]

It doesn’t matter. The law is what it is. Breaking the law to get your way isn’t the right way to get things done. Otherwise we’d all be justified in doing it whenever we don’t like something and there would be no point in laws anymore.

In a democracy, you can participate in our system and vote to have it changed, though. And that’s the effective way to address these issues.

[xeyownt]

If laws were the only truth there would be no justice in this world, as proven multiple times in history.

[sdenton4]

Bombing civilians and blocking food food aid also isn't nice.

Sitting in an office is much nicer.

[saulpw]

Breaking the law isn't a moral question, it's a legal one. You break the law, you go to jail, okay. But what is this "it isn't right" business? Some innocent bystanders are inconvenienced, so what? These people are protesting their employer's complicity in mass murder! And a corporation isn't a democracy, so they can't "vote to have it changed". Should they be bringing their concerns to HR, is that the right way to get things done?

The point is that the "right way"--the way that is sanctioned by the system--is deliberately hobbled by many people in positions of power, to be completely ineffective. So you may well have to push the bounds of the system to actually address these issues.

[otterley]

First of all, these are (probably now former) Google employees. I don’t work for Google, but I do know that most big companies have established channels for addressing employee grievances.

Second, Google isn’t a democracy, but we have a democratic system that allows us to influence our representatives to make reprehensible conduct illegal. If you want to change how a business operates, you can arrange a boycott as well. Companies take the threat of losing significant amounts of money very seriously.

If you honestly think that this type of action should be legal, then by all means, go convince our government to make it so. But I don’t think you are considering the long-term consequences such a change would have.

[saulpw]

No, I don't think this type of action should be legal. I think they should do it anyway. Protest is more meaningful (and raises more awareness) when there are consequences.

(You're Lawful Good, which is an admirable quality in a fellow citizen, but Chaotic Good can be more effective when the system has been captured by a strong Lawful Evil element.)

[king-geedorah]

"I don’t work for Google, but I do know that most big companies have established channels for addressing employee grievances"

If you read any of the articles coming out of this event you'll see that the protestors tried for months to get a dialog going with management in half a dozen different capacities, all of which were denied or swept under the rug immediately. Due to this behavior from management, many of the employees engaged in this cause had decided to quit, but if you were one of them why not try to protest one last time? This was basically the last option they had prior to leaving

[int_19h]

Have you ever heard about the Underground Railroad?