When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of

[Winnie]

My take on this is that it's never acceptable for a protestor or whatever to break the law to further their cause. Laws are there for a reason, one of them is to protect the public. If you have to break the law to get a point accross, then you've already lost the arguement. Peaceful protesting.. not a problem, if you have to intimidate, cause physical harm or destroy property, then the perpetrator is nothing more than a common criminal. There are plenty of avenues open to protestors or activists to raise awareness of their campaign without resorting to violence. JMO

[Rick]

@ Sarky - You get to live there, I don't. But you need to remember that the The Great Wall of China was built to protect its borders with varying success. I think you'll find even the Great Wall was eventually defeated along one of its gates. There's no reason to believe a fence or wall on our southern border would be any more successful.

@Poco - While it's often humorous to take a look at some of the laws that have been written, we have to remember that we are taking them out of context and doing so is what gives them humor.

[Sarge47]

No one, & I mean no one, is above the law; unless, of course, they're President of the United States. However, in the case of civil disobedience, I saw something interesting on the news awhile back. Some of Prez O's former supporters were upset with his education cuts & were protesting. Several men walked towards a police line that was guarding the entrance to a building. The idea behind this was for the protestors to get arrested for trying to enter, or maybe get the police to act in a "heavy-handed" way. However I applauded the police for what they did. As the protestors approached arm-in-arm, the cops "closed ranks" so tight that the only way the protestors could get past them was to physically lay their hands on them, and that would get them a felony assault charge, shooting down there validity as protestors. They stopped cold, unsure what to do next. I remember the rioting in Chicago during the Democratic Natiional convention when the police beat everyone in their way with their night sticks. This was a much better method as no one could complain about brutal cops, nor could it be considered an abuse of power. Their are rules & guidelines in place for lawful protest, & I will always respect the people who follow them, even if I don't agree with their cause; however I will never support ANY individual or organization that uses unlawful, or even unethical methods to try to make their case. That, in my opinion, would make them as bad as the thing they're protesting. An example would be that me & my family stand very strongly against the issue of legal abortion, yet I will never advocate violence, or even name-calling, against those that do, or even practice it; either as a patient or a doctor. Okay, getting down off of my soap-box now.

[Rick]

Now look what you did. All of these folks are protesting your speech. This could get ugly.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[kx250kev]

"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.

But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'. Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon. What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia). In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?

[Sarge47]

But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'. Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon. What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia). In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?

That's why we have guys like Ken; they're called Lawyers & they can answer weather standing on your constitutional right to bear arms regardless of what the Government tries to do is illegal or not. Guys like Ken can also go after the government. A lot of people put down lawyers, but when the chips are down & you really need one they can be your best friend!

[kx250kev]

An example would be that me & my family stand very strongly against the issue of legal abortion, yet I will never advocate violence, or even name-calling, against those that do, or even practice it; either as a patient or a doctor.

What if the government passed a law that said you can only have 1 child, and now your wife is pregnant? Your child will need to be aborted per the population reduction act. Fleeing the country makes you a felon, and you'll all be imprisoned for life if captured. Cops just stopped you and see that your wife is pregnant. Are you still non-violent?

Painted you in a corner now didn't I?

[pocomoonskyeyes]

So just to make sure I understand all the legal Law abiding citizens. What you are saying is that if you lived in Nazi Germany you would have ignored the abuses of humanity just to follow the "Letter of the Law" ? That the laws of that time and place were just,just because they were law? I personally would like to think better of myself than to have followed these laws. All I am saying is that to all things there is a time and place.... including breaking the law. You would follow the speed limit while rushing someone to the hospital who may die? I know these examples have nothing to do with the OP, I am merely showing examples that almost everyone would IGNORE the law, whatever it is, to do what is RIGHT not Legal.
This is what I meant about confusing morality with legality. Some things can be morally right,yet legally wrong, and vice versa. I have searched for one law that I have heard once existed but have been unable to verify for myself via the internet. There was a state that at one time deemed it LEGAL to kill(Murder) Native American women and Children, but not the men(go figure). It was assumed that no white woman would marry a Native American and thus they(Native Americans) would disappear. There is not one of us Today that would stand for such a law,and if a politician were standing in front of you telling you this was the right thing to do, you would probably strangle the life out of them. Times change,Laws change, but what is morally right should NEVER change. In todays Judicial system not many people realize that (at least in some states) Juries actually have the power to strike down a law that they deem unjust.

Let's take a look at something that is current. Marijuana. Today I hear that the AMA actually are backing the use of "medical Marijuana". How many people have broken that law because they knew that it had a chance to make their lives better? Perhaps give them just a little more comfort in what could be their last days? Perhaps give them just a little more strength to overcome their illness? Now I am not advocating absolute anarchy,or even ignoring the law. But if the law is more harmful than good, It needs to be done away with. If it means for some brave souls(like our founding Fathers) breaking that law, then someone needs to do what is MORALLY RIGHT,not LEGALLY RIGHT. Like everything else, not all laws are perfect. IF they can be changed in the conventional LEGAL way, then they should be. If they can't be changed conventionally, then they must be changed unconventionally. But changed they must be.

[Pal334]

But sometimes you don't have much choice whether to 'stay within the law'. Sometimes laws are passed that instantly make you or me an instant violator or felon. What if the government says everyone in America needs to turn in all guns (like they did in Austrailia). In those cases are you justified to break the law, or do you just turn everything over?

The post is about protesters, not mass,instaneous illegalization (if there is such a word) of something,including firearms. There are always lead times for changes in law, as there was in Australia. That is the time to within the law make your protests. And no, as long as there is a functioning democracy in the USA, I can think of no reason to ever use violence or violent and unlawful means to protest or to try to enforce YOUR or ANYONE ELSES opinion on me. As to your question "do you just turn everything over?" that borders on the silly, so I would not address it any further. Come out from that underground bunker and walk amongst us in civilization,participate in the democratic process. You will be more successful than hiding underground.

[kx250kev]

That's why we have guys like Ken; they're called Lawyers & they can answer weather standing on your constitutional right to bear arms regardless of what the Government tries to do is illegal or not. Guys like Ken can also go after the government. A lot of people put down lawyers, but when the chips are down & you really need one they can be your best friend!

So while Ken fights for your rights, you are technically in violation of the new law, so you either protest and break the law, or turn your guns over and hope that Ken wins them back. Which do you do?

[Sarge47]

So while Ken fights for your rights, you are technically in violation of the new law, so you either protest and break the law, or turn your guns over and hope that Ken wins them back. Which do you do?

A law does NOT become a law until it is enforced in court, ergo Ken goes to court to fight it. If the law wins I'd give them all of my guns...if they hadn't all been stolen.

[crashdive123]

Gotta agree with Pal on this. A draconian law such as the examples that you site will not happen over night. Look at the current protests regarding health care reform. Voices are being heard and making a difference. Using the Australian gun ban laws is a good example of the people becoming complacent and not having their voices heard. Oh sure, there were some, but many remained silent - leaving the heavy lifting to others. You were asking about protesting, not the attempts by a government to ....... well - that discussion is political, and for another forum.

[kx250kev]

The post is about protesters, not mass,instaneous illegalization (if there is such a word) of something,including firearms. There are always lead times for changes in law, as there was in Australia. That is the time to within the law make your protests. And no, as long as there is a functioning democracy in the USA, I can think of no reason to ever use violence or violent and unlawful means to protest or to try to enforce YOUR or ANYONE ELSES opinion on me. As to your question "do you just turn everything over?" that borders on the silly, so I would not address it any further. Come out from that underground bunker and walk amongst us in civilization,participate in the democratic process. You will be more successful than hiding underground.

Pal334, I'm simply exploring the subject...its' extremes and hypotheticals. I don't condone violence, and the topic doesn't ask when is violence acceptable. It simply asks when is is justifiable to break the law for the sake of a cause. This could include 'mass instantaneous illegalization' which causes the protesting and activism in the first place.

P.s. I'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to 'kick this can' around. Many great ideas here.

[Pal334]

Pal334, I'm simply exploring the subject. I don't condone violence, and the topic doesn't ask when is violence acceptable. It simply asks when is is justifiable to break the law for the sake of a cause. This could include 'mass instantaneous illegalization' which causes the protesting and activism in the first place.

I usually avoid these types of "What if" questions, since they lead an otherwise useful conversation in silly directions. So I will step out of this one since in my opinion it is wandering into useless banter. The light of day and fresh air does wonders, as do facts.

Some unsolicited advise:
Before you use the Australian example again, I would suggest you "google" it and read the facts from several different sources.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

I usually avoid these types of "What if" questions, since they lead an otherwise useful conversation in silly directions. So I will step out of this one since in my opinion it is wandering into useless banter. The light of day and fresh air does wonders, as do facts.

Some unsolicited advise:
Before you use the Australian example again, I would suggest you "google" it and read the facts from several different sources.

Pal what about my post, post #28? These are current and historical instances, I have used. Your Signature quote also tells me (at least my perception) is that you would do what is right even if it were "Wrong" legally.

[Pal334]

Pal what about my post, post #28? These are current and historical instances, I have used. Your Signature quote also tells me (at least my perception) is that you would do what is right even if it were "Wrong" legally.

I did read your post. The "current reference" ie: Marijuana does not mean much to me, since drug usage is stupid. Does not mean I disagree with your opinion, it is yours and I respect it. The "historic references" are just that, history, we have to learn from it / them and not make the same mistakes now. I have never ignored a criminal law just because I did not agree with it, in fact I have enforced them and complied with them through out my career. Having said that ,I have and still do vehemently oppose unlawful attempts to misconstrue or inapropriately apply laws, rules and regulations. I have refused unlawful orders from Commissioned officers in the US military (both times to the detriment of my career)and my decisions both times where upheld by compentent authority. Other than the examples I have mentioned, I can not currently envision not complying with the laws of the land as they currently exist.
I do agree that if we the people feel that a law is unjust, then LEGAL ACTION needs to be taken to change it that is why I encourage everyone to vote!!!!!!. Taking inappropriate action, or mass disobedience of a law will make us no better than a 3rd world country

I am off to bed,4am comes early for us miscreants

[pocomoonskyeyes]

Pal I somehow figured you would answer the way you did. You are dependable and have strong morals, which I respect and admire. I really could see you standing up and refusing Illegal Orders, I really can. Good For You! I once stood up to my superiors too, over conflicting orders,and caught flak over it too. So I know how that feels being, "wrong" when you are right. I appreciate your perspective and thank you for your contributions.

[kx250kev]

So...at the extreme... Do I simply need to believe in my cause for it to be justifiable?

Sarky, I'm with you that what that guy did was....well....evil, but I think Rick does have a good point or question here.

Who determines what is 'justifiable' when breaking the law?

[Rick]

I wrote that because others had indicated that if they believed in something then they would be just in violating the law. I don't see how that can be justified. Not saying it's wrong or invalid. I just don't understand it.

Kx, I think you and Poco are dealing with hypothetical scenarios. What if questions can't be answered.

As to the marijuana question, it's illegal. A LOT of folks choose to violate they law. They do so at their own peril. It's a choice they make of their own free will. Still, it's illegal and getting caught means paying some consequence, which they are apparently willing to pay.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

Sarky, I'm with you that what that guy did was....well....evil, but I think Rick does have a good point or question here.

Who determines what is 'justifiable'? Does it mean that the person breaking the law is one that determines what is justifiable? Or would it be when a majority of the population would find a persons actions justifiable.

Or maybe this paper simply needs to focus on what 'I' would argue is justifiable? But that just seems like a paper full of my opinions. Yuk. Anyone out there that can read my professors mind?

As near as I can tell there are only two entities that will determine if it is right or wrong when something like you are talking about is done.
History is one,in which case we may never know if it is really "right" in our own lifetime. The other is public opinion.

Earlier I used the example about Medical Marijuana. Today federal law says that it is illegal. However some states have decided to "buck the system",and say that it should be (in their states at least) legal. It would seem that the medical community is now backing these states. Since this is a health and medical issue I would have to question the feds motives in keeping the medical(NOT recreational) use of a drug,any drug as being illegal. I see it as if the feds were to say that penicillin were illegal but some states and the medical community said it should be legal. Who am I to listen to? Who really knows what is best in this situation? This is a law that is being challenged(the federal one) openly yet within legal bounds (if only marginally),yet at the same time is breaking that law. A Paradox I know. The states are following their law making process while breaking the federal law. This could be construed as exactly the case you are talking about. It is a protest of sorts.Laws being used to break laws.