Overview of These Protesters Are Protesting Wrong!
This Climate Town episode examines recent high-profile climate protests that targeted artwork (notably Just Stop Oil’s tomato soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers and Last Generation’s mashed potatoes on Monet’s haystacks), the media and public backlash, historical precedents (suffragettes, ACT UP, civil rights), legal consequences for protesters, and whether disruptive tactics are an effective part of social movements. The hosts argue the coverage is often shallow or misleading, that disruptive tactics have historical precedent and strategic value (radical-flank effect), and that there is no single “right” way to protest.
What happened (basic facts & timeline)
- October 14, 2022: Two Just Stop Oil activists (Anna Holland and Phoebe Plummer) poured tomato soup onto the glass covering Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London. The painting itself was protected by glass and unharmed; the frame/wall suffered minor damage.
- October 24, 2022: Two Last Generation activists threw mashed potatoes at Monet’s haystacks at the Museum Barberini in Potsdam; the painting was behind protection and not damaged.
- Around the same period: ~40 similar incidents occurred internationally (cake on wax figures, milk poured in supermarkets, etc.).
- Legal outcome: Phoebe Plummer was sentenced to 27 months and Anna Holland to 20 months (some custody time credited); the judge described their acts as not “peaceful or nonviolent.”
How the media responded
- Strong, often hostile coverage across outlets and the political spectrum:
- Fox & Friends commentary advocated extreme punishments (e.g., “shove weights inside of them”).
- CNN’s Jake Tapper dismissed the protests as infantile “making a mess with food,” and argued they’re not comparable to some historic protests.
- Joe Rogan and guests framed disruptive actions (roadblocks, gluing to roads) as dangerous and deserving of scorn; some commentators conflated property-directed disruption with violent attacks on people.
- Crucial omission: many mainstream clips did not play the protesters’ own statements explaining their motives. When played, the message was blunt: “What is worth more, art or life? … Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?”
Historical context and precedents
- Suffragettes: Early-20th-century militants (e.g., Mary Richardson) damaged art (e.g., Rokeby Venus) to protest the government’s treatment of women — explicitly using cultural objects as symbols to dramatize human injustice.
- ACT UP (AIDS activism): Used disruptive, theatrical, and highly visible tactics (die-ins, public stunts) that were unpopular at the time but effective at forcing attention and policy conversations.
- Civil Rights movement: Nonviolent mass action (Montgomery bus boycott, March on Washington) faced widespread contemporaneous opposition; leaders like MLK were unpopular in their moment despite later reverence.
- Colin Kaepernick: An example of a protest intended to be “respectful” (taking a knee after consulting a veteran) that nonetheless provoked massive backlash and professional consequences.
Legal and moral issues raised
- Courts and sentencing: Judges have sometimes labeled these object-directed protests as “violent,” producing long prison sentences that many see as disproportionate—especially contrasted with limited criminal penalties for large-scale environmental harms by corporations (e.g., Exxon, BP spills).
- Public reaction: Disruption often triggers visceral anger (traffic delays, perceived attack on cultural heritage), and that can result in dehumanizing rhetoric or even violence against protesters.
- Real-world violence: The episode highlights that violent outcomes (e.g., shootings of protesters in other countries) are not hypothetical and that media and commentators sometimes minimize or mock protesters even amid severe consequences.
Strategic arguments: are these tactics effective?
- Radical flank effect: Social movement research cited in the episode shows that the presence of a radical flank (extreme tactics) can increase support for more moderate factions in the same movement; it’s the use of radical tactics (not merely a radical agenda) that can shift attention and shape the Overton window.
- Visibility vs. persuasion: Disruptive actions aim to force attention and create moral urgency. They often provoke backlash but may make moderate channels (marches, lobbying) more effective by comparison.
- No single “right” protest: The episode’s central claim is that there is no universally effective, non-disruptive protest that will satisfy all audiences. Many historically consequential actions were unpopular in their time.
Notable quotes & soundbites
- From a protester at the Van Gogh action: “What is worth more, art or life? … Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?”
- Judge sentencing comment: the acts “cannot properly be described as peaceful or nonviolent.”
- Media dismissals: Jake Tapper likened the actions to an “infant making a mess with food”; Fox hosts called for punitive measures.
Key takeaways
- Context matters: Media coverage often fails to present protesters’ stated rationales or historical parallels; that lack of context skews public understanding.
- Disruption is intrinsic to protest: Widely unpopular or shocking tactics have historically been part of successful movements, and discomfort is frequently part of shifting public norms.
- Legal and moral asymmetry: Protesters sometimes receive harsher legal consequences than corporate actors responsible for far larger environmental harms, raising questions about enforcement priorities.
- There’s no perfect protest: Attempts to find a universally palatable method are unlikely to satisfy all audiences; movements typically use a mix of tactics (moderate and radical) to exert pressure.
Recommendations / implications
- For media: Provide protesters’ own statements, historical precedents, and links between tactic and grievance rather than only reflexive outrage or spectacle framing.
- For activists: Expect backlash; use a mix of tactics intentionally (recognize the potential strategic value of a radical flank) and be explicit about your message.
- For the public and policymakers: Distinguish between property-directed disruption and violence against people; examine why surprise and anger are felt more for certain symbolic losses than for real-world human and ecological harms.
Final thought (podcast hosts’ position)
- The hosts sympathize with the protesters’ goals and argue that the debate about “protesting right” is often unproductive. They urge better media contextualization and recognize disruptive protest as a historically necessary tool to compel action on existential issues like climate change.