But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we must respect the law. If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.
It seems to me, of course I have no way of knowing, but it SEEMS to me that you are NOT EVEN AWARE that you're not making arguments.
Nor did you. You just appeal to some popular notion that everyone already agrees with ("treat humans like humans"). Then you suggest this is the same as the other thing, again giving no reason.
Maybe you really can give reason to someone, who abuses people, not to do it. To treat humans as humans. But you would have to delude yourself to think you already did it here.
Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). You can extend that logic to say that you "can" abuse humans.
But your logic totally misses societal context. When someone says "can", they aren't talking about pure physical capability. That's why no one in their right mind will say "I can stab you".
I do not have compassion or empathy for ads.
I would say that is precisely backwards: one should treat other humans well, for a variety of reasons. We write that down in law as a shared agreement. But the law is not itself the reason -- it springs from the reasons.
What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed to a certain principle. The society has, basically, agreed that enduring outdoor ads is acceptable, while enduring random property damage is not, as there are no exceptions for ad vandalism -- that's what I call to respect here -- agreed principles. If we don't agree with that, we must change the law. If society we live in is ripe for the change, then it should be possible. If not, we have no moral right to do property damage while leveraging all the benefits of living in that society.
If you're saying that there is an a priori moral presumption that laws should be followed, maybe because they represent (possibly) some sort of societal consensus, than that is a closer question, but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the legal rights of the advertisers ought to, in a moral sense, be respected.
Note though that even the US judiciary doesn't make much of a legal mandate with no penalties attached (see the last Obamacare case to reach SCOTUS).
Coming to your question, I don't know. When do legal rights end and moral rights begin? Something I'd really like to read more about. I remember enjoying Michael Sandel's lectures online and then reading his book. Would really like to find something in his style on this topic.
But in the case of vandalizing advertisements, breaking the law is a risk some of us are gleefully willing to take.
