Readers Defend Overpass Protests in Response to Editorial

Letter writer argues editorial dismissing overpass demonstrations as 'narcissism' and 'futile optics' reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of public protest.

Published on Feb. 12, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a letter to the editor, a reader responds to a recent editorial that dismissed overpass demonstrations as 'narcissism' and 'futile optics.' The letter writer argues that the editorial reflects a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of public protest, which is not primarily about instant conversion or persuading hardened opponents, but about sustained, visible civic presence as an effective tool for resisting harmful policies, pressuring representatives, and defending democratic norms.

Why it matters

This response highlights the ongoing debate around the legitimacy and effectiveness of different forms of public protest, particularly in the context of recent social and political movements. It underscores the importance of critically examining assumptions about the purpose and impact of protest, and considering the diverse motivations and experiences of those who choose to engage in such actions.

The details

The letter writer takes issue with the editorial's characterization of overpass demonstrations as inherently self-indulgent, arguing that this logic would dismiss nearly every form of public dissent in American history. The writer also suggests that standing above a freeway may feel safer for some protesters than downtown protest zones, where peaceful gatherings are sometimes met with aggressive enforcement.

  • The letter was published on February 12, 2026.

The players

Laura Michael

A resident of Westlake Village, California, who wrote the letter in response to the editorial.

Thousand Oaks Acorn

The local newspaper that published the original editorial and the reader's response letter.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I read your recent editorial dismissing overpass demonstrations as 'narcissism' and 'futile optics.' It reflects a serious misunderstanding of what public protest is for, centering momentary inconvenience rather than the stakes of the moment.”

— Laura Michael, Westlake Village resident (Thousand Oaks Acorn)

“Research on nonviolent movements shows that sustained, visible civic presence is one of the most effective tools ordinary people have used to resist harmful policies, pressure representatives and defend democratic norms. It reminds those affected they are not alone and that people refuse to look away.”

— Laura Michael, Westlake Village resident (Thousand Oaks Acorn)

The takeaway

This response highlights the ongoing debate around the legitimacy and effectiveness of different forms of public protest, underscoring the importance of critically examining assumptions about the purpose and impact of protest, and considering the diverse motivations and experiences of those who choose to engage in such actions.