And there's a reason why, in your example, the end result of the public being unhappy is to change the laws: because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws. If the public disagreeing was enough, then there would be no need to have laws.

> because at the end of the day, the only thing that holds any real weight in society are the laws

The world has a long sad history of showing this isn’t the case. The slow creep of authoritarianism usually happens by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and goes beyond the previous norms of legal interpretation.

Sometimes officials choose not to do things "at their digression" based on public opinion, without the need to change laws. Also, the argument about changing laws is moot if we are discussion the suppression of information, from becoming public, and therefore motivating the law.

Basically, "if it is legal or not" is not the only important factor, because laws can change.