PETA is certainly exploiting leverage. But the leverage is not PETA created. As cgod says somewhere down there, the whole thing would be weird and crazy if the government, who took the water away in the first place, was now offering it back with strings attached. But PETA is a third party with no responsibilities in either direction. I just don't see the immorality. I think the instinctive liberal howl of "how awful" is based on a) PETA's prior reputation (fair) and b) an unwillingness to indulge in consequentialism (also generally fair, but maybe not in this case). I should watch that, I really know almost nothing about the Mormons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence Because the leverage was not created by PETA, they are not guilty of coercion. However, those with overdue water bills could argue duress. The success of that argument would determine whether or not PETA practiced undue influence over those they are attempting to "help." But the legal definitions don't really matter. The fact is, PETA is claiming "charity" while everyone watching is arguing about whether their actions are kinda shitty, shitty, really shitty or mondo shitty. It's like this: you've been flooded out of your apartment and are floating down the river. I've got a 20' Zodiac with an Evinrude and a full tank of gas. If I roll up on you and help you on my boat, I'm doing you a favor. I'm performing an act of charity. On the other hand, if I roll up on you and offer to help you into my boat if you accept Our Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior, I'm entering into a contract. And I'm notably not knocking on your door before the flood to make you the same offer - I'm waiting until there's a substantial amount of pressure for you to accept my help. It's shitty. There are ample arguments to be made as to how shitty it is, but there are few arguments to be made that it's unshitty. Here's the thing about rationalism: There's no long game. In order to build up societal constructs out of rationalism that are typically built up out of hardwired human emotional response, one has to delve deeply into social economics and psychology. In order to operate as human without the rational baggage, one need only ask "is this a dick move?" and trust your gut. You're having trouble with this because you're balls deep in rationalist thinking. Rationalist thinking, from my overview of it, breaks social functions down into problems of logic. Problems of logic are always easier to solve when you tightly constrain their boundary conditions... and ethical problems are rarely tightly constrained. Just because PETA didn't create the leverage does not mean that PETA is free and clear to exploit that leverage. Uber didn't take hostages in Sydney either but exploiting human tragedy for your own financial advantage is one of the quickest ways there is to find yourself the subject of a fiery sermon on Sunday. As it was, so shall it ever be, amen. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law and from necessity.
In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.