>If the ads said "You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com" then it would be much less objectionable IMO.
It's 'less objectionable' because it's bordering on bootlicking, and could even read as a tacit endorsement of the status quo.
Is that really bootlicking? I struggle to understand how that's the case, and I'd prefer to hear a dispassionate reading of reality that lets me decide how to feel based on my own values, rather than one that's intentionally extreme to try and scare me into subscribing to a position.
It is, in that police tactics can be aggressive, but being assertive about protecting yourself from aggressive police tactics is "radical" or "paranoid."
I wouldn't describe it as "unsafe". It's neither. Locks aren't dangerous. There is a whole level of subtext going on there and if you are in on it (which you seem to be), then it makes complete sense. If you are not, it leaves you scratching your head (as I was). I will argue that it is completely ineffective wording as the only people who will understand what it means are the people who don't need to read it.
It's 'less objectionable' because it's bordering on bootlicking, and could even read as a tacit endorsement of the status quo.