The New Yorker has a highly controversial article which asks whether environmentalists should commit sabotage in pursuit of environmental goals. Author Andreas Malm specifically mentions blowing up oil and gas pipelines and refineries, one supposes because fossil fuels are anathema to greens.
The New Yorker routinely advocates policies which many believe, if implemented, will do irreversible damage to this nation and its culture. Would that justify impassioned patriots blowing up the magazine?
TNY would take a dim view of such action, and indeed of its advocacy. The magazine should take an equally dim view of advocating extra-judicial violence for any reason, lest they be hoist by their own 'petard.'
When strong feelings become all that's required to justify felonious actions, it empowers those you don't like as well as those you do. Down that road lives anarchy and a Mad Max world we hope to avoid.
Afterthought: What if someone blows up a pipeline and its owners sue The New Yorker for inciting the act? Their argument that an editor's judgment selected the article for publication might convince the majority of a civil jury that a tort occurred at the magazine.
