Originally Posted by
rcsa
Or maybe the UK justice system has signaled that allowing peaceful public protest against a contentious legal process is a more important moral and social principle than protecting the commercial rights of airlines, airport operators and passengers. Perhaps the 'signal' is that although there will be legal sanction, it will not be so severe as to completely discourage such protest in future.
This is a principle that has been established in court in the past, against road protestors, among others.
Your right to protest ends where my right to go about me legal business is impeded. How it is acceptable to close down roads, airports, shops or anything that self-proclaimed SJWs deem "harmful" goes beyond me. Whether its the legal deportation of someone without a permit to reside in the country, or preventing medical personnel from accessing their clinics, the law should protect the law-abiding citizens from going about their legal business. This verdict clearly shows that in this particular case, the self-proclaimed rights of small group of SJWs are valued above the rights of thousands of travelers.