The point being that we're beyond where that's a responsible choice. Empathy for an organization enforcing its rules above the actions of those protesting them means either an ideological alignment with the censorship or an ignorance/disbelief of the severity of the harm the organization is causing. The former audience will never be persuaded. The latter require education and persuasion, and while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom via forcing the enemy to act in an obviously unreasonable fashion, it's a waste of time to argue with their definitions of rules. If the rule were "you are not allowed to say the governing body is corrupt" and they say its corrupt, that exposes clearly and plainly the problem, and enforcement of the rule provides no authority because the rule itself is obviously designed to quash dissent. If the listener is so blithely oblivious to how the intent of a rule has been manipulated to quash dissent, as it has here, then there is no loss in squarely addressing that. "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing.