While I respect peoples rights to protest against something that they feel strongly about I don't appreciate their use of rhetoric in trying to persuade others to join in the campaign. For example:

> obnoxious, inappropriate promotion of a movie.
> makes fun of people who are grappling with suicide.
> alarming “shock and awe” advertising campaign
> alarming and dangerous.
> cruel and offensive
> an issue of public health.

I'm sure that everybody would agree that if the advertising campaign is 'an issue of public health', 'cruel and offensive', 'alarming and dangerous', an attempt to 'shock and awe', 'makes fun of people grappling with suicide', and is an 'obnoxious, inappropriate promotion of a movie' then it should indeed be stopped.

I would imagine that the precise point of controversy is whether those descriptions are the best way to describe the effects (whether intended or otherwise) of such a campaign. For example, if there were to be a court case over this I'm sure the precise issue would be whether the ad campaign is in fact accurately described in this way.

I would find it understandable for people to describe the campaign and then inform people on how to protest if they found it protest worthy.

What I resent about this is the attempt to persuade people to classify it similarly through the use of emotionally charged rhetoric rather than simply describing and allowing others to make up their own mind.