The public condones aggression for social control but condemns it for social change

Evidence

In the clash between moral imperative and legal order, institutional officials marshal moral reasons for the use of aggressive means of social control, whereas challengers marshal moral reasons for militant action for social change. The public is more supportive of the use of aggression for social control than for social change (Blumenthal, 1972). It is likely to view dissent and protests as violent acts but is more forgiving of police abuses and denial of civil rights. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 362

Categorization

• SEED: Angle: asymmetry in which violence the public excuses (state, status-quo-preserving) versus condemns (protest) — and how that asymmetry itself does moral work.
• QUESTION: Blumenthal 1972 is fifty years old — has this asymmetry held or shifted in polling since?