If you looked up at Twin Peaks recently and noticed something different about the skyline, you weren't imagining things. Activists unfurled a 120-foot banner reading "End U.S. aid to Israel" across one of San Francisco's most iconic landmarks, turning public parkland into a political billboard.

The group behind the display said they were urging an end to U.S. funding for what they described as Israel's killing of over 100,000 Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians.

Let's set aside the geopolitics for a moment — people can and should debate U.S. foreign policy. That's the beauty of the First Amendment, and San Francisco has a long, proud tradition of protest. No argument there.

But here's the thing that always nags at us: the selective enforcement problem. Try hanging a 120-foot commercial banner anywhere in SF and see how fast the city's permitting apparatus descends on you like a hawk. Put up an unapproved sign on your own storefront and you'll get a nastygram from Planning before the paint dries. Yet a massive political installation on city-managed parkland? Crickets.

We're not saying activists should be arrested for expressing their views — far from it. We're saying the rules should be consistent. San Francisco has a habit of enforcing regulations based on vibes rather than law, and that's corrosive to public trust regardless of which side of any issue you're on.

There's also the broader question of what these kinds of demonstrations actually accomplish beyond preaching to an already-converted choir. San Francisco voted overwhelmingly for the most progressive presidential candidate available in every recent election. Hanging a banner on Twin Peaks calling for a shift in U.S. foreign policy is a bit like going to a vegan restaurant and demanding they stop serving meat.

Protest is a right. But persuasion requires meeting people where they disagree with you — not where they already don't.