You missed the second half of that sentence.Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions.
It's that second bit I take issue with. He (and others in agreement) should not simply 'accept the consequences' of his actions if we believe the consequences are unjust. It reads as if we should sit back and passively let our governments dictate the agenda of their citizens, when It is the citizens that should set the agenda. The petition acknowledges that laws were broken, but is asking for the consequence to be changed. While the position outlined in the response is understandable, I feel like they could and should have put together a much more robust rationale rather than simply saying "it's a dangerous world and people only have the right to take part in this important debate on our terms - namely on US soil and when in solitary confinement - certainly not while you're out there broadcasting views openly from some commie state".