aries2756,
H&M does have a right to be notified that their ad was offensive in that community and that the owner of the space should have informed them of that.
For all of the money that large companies spend on market research, I find it hard to believe that they would have been completely ignorant of the situation. Also, I would imagine that people calling or writing complaints would be more likely to send them to the company rather than the property owner, because the company’s name is on the ad.
charliehall,
Yes, I would oppose it. Vandalism is illegal. It is no different from some Christian fanatic torching a synagogue because he is offended from our denial of his messiah.
Please. I really don’t think that painting over a billboard and torching a synagogue are analogous. In fact, I find the juxtaposition objectionable, since it suggests that torching a synagogue is only vandalism, and not an act of terror and hatred, or even murder if someone were inside.
Also, would you oppose any form of civil disobedience, no matter what for, because it was illegal?
gavra_at_work,
Had the Bochrim been thinking clearly, they might have covered the ad without defacing it (such as using a large tarp and a staple gun), until the ad could be changed by the owner.
I very much agree with this.