But I'm asking whether you think it should be illegal. Perhaps that's not what you think you're talking about, but it is. If you believe that he should have gotten a worse punishment than he did, that's just a hop, skip and a jump away from my contention (although on the opposite side of the argument) that it shouldn't even be illegal at all. If you can argue that the penalty should be greater, can't I equally argue that there shouldn't be one at all?
Laws are only laws until they are opposed by enough people to get the law changed. What Rosa Parkes did was illegal, but she raised the question of whether there should be a punishment for something that isn't really hurting anyone. If something is considered "wrong", I think it's more than necessary to wonder what the world would be like if it wasn't. Otherwise, how could false assumptions ever be changed? Brendan Fevola has nearly wrecked his life legally multiple times, and Cameron Stokes has nearly wrecked his life illegally, doing something less damaging to himself than many people do with everyday consumption of legal prescription and recreational drugs. The only difference is the legality (often based on no more than historical convention) of the means by which said "destruction" has taken place.