One of the tags for this lack of freedom. To me it raises questions not addressed by the article.
An assumed freedom here is the right not to be beaten to death.
But it appears to be also assumed that the guy has a right to film people who may not wish to be filmed.
It is clear that they wanted to harm him and they did.
It is not made clear that it is reasonable to believe that his actions might have been directed toward wanting to cause harm to the ones who harmed him. Granted, he may believe his harm is done for a good purpose, but it is an act of passing judgment on others behavior, and the ones he wanted to harm may actually honestly believe that their actions are also for the good.
Aft...

One of the tags for this lack of freedom. To me it raises questions not addressed by the article.
An assumed freedom here is the right not to be beaten to death.
But it appears to be also assumed that the guy has a right to film people who may not wish to be filmed.
It is clear that they wanted to harm him and they did.
It is not made clear that it is reasonable to believe that his actions might have been directed toward wanting to cause harm to the ones who harmed him. Granted, he may believe his harm is done for a good purpose, but it is an act of passing judgment on others behavior, and the ones he wanted to harm may actually honestly believe that their actions are also for the good.
After all, garbage is real and it does have to go somewhere. It is going to cost in some way for the process. The protesters aren't automatically right except in the fact they don't like the garbage. And obviously someone else is equally not liking it to go elsewhere. But it will go somewhere and quite realistically the cost and or placement will be to someones discomfort.
That said, my own action judgment is that I am not going to poke the bear even if I have a right to, and if I do, I have to accept some responsibility for my part in the result.