When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?
I'm writing an essay on this 'pre-chosen' topic for a class. At first I thought this was a stupid topic, but I'm starting to warm up to it. I trust you guys, so I thought I'd post it here to research your thoughts and opinions regarding this topic.
:tabletalk:
IMO as long as a protest is non-violent, and does not infringe on the rights of others it is just an expression of free speech. What kind of laws were you thinking of in your question?
Are you asking, when are they justified to revolt? or just when can they start busting in windows and burning cars?
Unfortunately, the professor gave us no more info than this topic title. "When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?"
I guess it is up to me to define and argue this topic. Maybe another buzz word here is civil disobedience.
Breaking the law could be either peaceful or violent I suppose. Good point guys. I was automatically thinking about peaceful law breaking, but I'll add violent to my notes. I'm in the brainstorming phase right now, so what keeps entering my mind is our 2nd amendment gun rights, or anytime laws violate 'inalienable rights' or the constitution, or personal freedom/liberty or property rights. Or maybe if the government forces us to buy something like health insurance. Then we might have a duty to break the law. Seems to me I read something in either the constitution, or by a founding father (maybe the federalist papers) where they talked about "unjust laws". Can't remember where that was. Also, was it Jefferson that talked something about the "tree of liberty" and "blood of tyrants". Can't remember the quote. Basically saying that at some point the people might need to rise up and oust their government.:online2long:
TJ's quote wasQuote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Look at some of the history of protests in the US. Recently 1.7 million folks protested in DC - not a single arrest. Then take some of the folks protesting the G7, 8 (whatever number they're up to) - a few hundred protesters and dozens of arrests. The civil rights protests of the 60's. Some non-violent, with civil disobedience. Some violent. Obviously there are extents to which laws can be broken. From trespassing, to physical destruction of property and injuring people. Look at the Founding Fathers - considered radicals and law breakers by many, patriots by many others. Often the label applied will depend on which side is doing the labeling.
Thanks. So TJ obviously believed that laws might need to be broken again some day to restore our liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Yep, G8 vs Tea Parties. Big difference. I'm a peaceful tea partier myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Patriots or traitors, I guess it depends on which side you are on.
All good points!
Another thing to consider for those with a cause they want to further is the impact their actions will have on the outcome of the debate. Take for example ELF (Earth Liberation Front) using terrorist tactics to drive their point home. Their actions make it clear that their goal is not that of saving the environment, but rather one of anti capitalism. How does torching vehicles and buildings (spewing more harmful pollutants into the atmosphere than those material things would ever produce) further a cause of environmentalism. In their case, the protest they do have been caused them to be ignored as a serious organization, and sought after for criminal reasons. Not a very good way to further your stated cause.
"When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of of their cause?"
Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause. Laws are (well at least in theory) put in place for the public good. When a group disobeys them during their protest, they are signaling that their cause "trumps" the safety and security of the public at large.
I am of course not referring to civil disobedience, jay walking etc. I am referring to violence or disruption of transportation, or other services.
Laws are usually (not always) established by the majority for the betterment of all. For a minority to choose to circumvent that law for their own purpose negates the purpose of the law in the first place. I can't justify any group breaking the law for their own cause.
There are obviously degrees to be considered. Violating a no trespassing sign is much different than violating the law on murder. However, violating the no trespassing sign erodes the foundation of the murder law. Where do you draw the line and who has the right to decide where the line is to be drawn?
Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the right to ignore it. IMHO.
I had to write a paper on civil disobedience when I was in college. I don't remember much about what I wrote though. Just remember that it is a college paper. All you have to do is go to the library, find a bunch of books on civil disobedience, and quote a bunch of people on both side of the fence. The more people you quote, and the less personal opinion you put in the paper, the better the grade you will get. :sailor:
Personally, I feel that civil disobedience is justifiable when the law you are breaking is itself violating the constitution and Bill of Rights. Of course, this means that you are taking upon yourself the translation and interpretation of what those documents actually mean. But, if you are willing to go to prison for the rest of your life for it, then more power to you.
I can kinda go along with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyME
I guess the person would have to believe that the benefits of his/her actions, outweighs the consequences.....but I believe that a person should be responsible for restitution, for any and all damages, as part of the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Good question considering it's how our country, the USA, was founded.
it would depend on who you ask.
if i knew that breaking the law would further my cause then I'd consider that justifiable. However, I don't think the opposing party would.
So...at the extreme...then Major Hasan's act was justifiable?
I don't really want to start a debate on that subject I'm just throwing the example out to ask where do you draw the line between something like trespass and murder? Do I simply need to believe in my cause for it to be justifiable?
Major Murderer's actions were not justifiable. Noone forced him to jion the military! He took advantage of the system and then abused it to the enth degree. Hasan could have resigned and paid the military back for his schooling, but NO! he wanted the "free ride"
The idiot ELF people do as much damage to the enviroment as the people they target.
Out here in CA the state is taking an additional 10% income tax as an intrest free loan from the people. They say it's not a tax and that you'll get the money back (in the form of an IOU?) when you file your taxes. Can you say tax revolt comming!!??
We the people wanted a wall on our southern border, the idiots in DC drag their knuckles and thus is formed the Minute Men. When asked why no wall DC responds "it can't be done" .....we put a man on the moon, The chineese built the wall to end all walls and we with all our know how can't build a stinking wall? Now that is representation(sic)! I say throw all the bums out! If they won't go willingly, I know where you can get a good deal on some tar and feathers!
You realize there was a time in this country when this was common place.
Heres a different spin on those illegal people from another guy close to the border, have you ever thought about how those illegal people are more patriotic than many Americans, they know that we have it good and so they run, ump, and swim so they can take manual labor jobs. Granted I don't want to pay for there health care as some people in the White house want me to, but just pointing it out.
As far as breaking the law in a protest, I believe that breaking the law as Pal344 is best "Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause. Laws are (well at least in theory) put in place for the public good. When a group disobeys them during their protest, they are signaling that their cause "trumps" the safety and security of the public at large."
i hate to encourage the hijacking of a thread but i take exception to people complaining about illegal immigration and demanding things like walls being built. i hear a lot about demand for items "made in the USA" but i never hear people talking about buying "made by legal employess". the illegal work force is only made possible because
1. people continue to consume goods and services produced by illegals
2. illegals will work for a wage much lower than what a legal american is willing to accept.
sure we could build and maintain a wall at astronomical cost(can you imagine how expensive it would be??). a much cheaper option would be to stop buying product produced by illegal labour.
as for the OP i think it is very much dependent on what you are protesting and what law you are going to break.
i have developed this notion that if you are attempting to change a law or something about the enforcement of the law the last thing you want to do is validate the need for the existence of that law.
so, say you are protesting police brutality, it would probably be a bad idea to antagonize and start fights with the police.
Before I say anything else I want to say that the majority of laws MAY be good and in the majorities best interest. HOWEVER there is the other side of the coin. Not all laws are smart or just,as SARKY pointed out. Just click on this link and I think you will see where I am coming from.
http://www.google.com/search?q=stupi...ient=firefox-a
Did you know it is illegal to sell a blue duckling in Kentucky unless you offer at least 6 of them? Some idiot had too many martinis or something on his lunch break. But it is law.
While it may not apply to our country. Some laws just go against Human nature. A look at our own past will show that. If that is not enough look at Nazi Germany,or many other countries have laws that are just plain not right. In these cases Breaking the laws is not only just, It is actually the Morally right thing to do.All I am trying to say here is let's not confuse law with morality. A law can exist that is immoral, or morally unjust. If this is the case then assuming that this/these laws cannot or will not be changed. Then breaking other laws May become necessary to get them changed or eliminated altogether. The American Revolution was not absent of taking human life, nor was world war 2. There are times and places where it is unfortunately necessary. The Resistance in WWII was breaking many laws,every day.
perfectly statedQuote:
let's not confuse law with morality