• abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It is and I don’t agree with the sentence - way too harsh, especially considering that the art was undamaged.

    That said I feel, while there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art for future generations and the ends do not justify the means - it basically feels like the cause (saving the Earth) wasn’t taken into account here. Also, the “almost” part wasn’t either - they’re treating it like these were vandals who successfully destroyed a valuable work of art forever because they were bored.

    That’s … ridiculous. Especially compared two the guys who got off with a suspended sentence because they beat up a cop or two for fun.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      i expect future generations would see any damage to the art as part of its extended story and its place in stopping climate change