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

[Rick]

I think you'll find they chose the courts as a first means. In any case, you're attempting to compare a dictatorship to a republic.

[Rick]

See how we think? Amazing. Great minds and all.

[Ken]

Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers..........

Yes, most of our Founding Fathers WERE Lawyers.

Tell ya' what: You can all call me "Dad," okay?

[Rick]

Uncle Dad?

[crashdive123]

I'm not sure what 2D's response will be, but I'll lay ya even odds it gets moved.

[Ken]

Uncle Dad?

That's fine.

I'm not sure what 2D's response will be, but I'll lay ya even odds it gets moved.

An inconvenience which could be resolved by just one click of the "Ban Button."

[oneraindog]

I think you may be comparing apple to oranges. I believe most response (at least mine was) were referring to protest in the United States, not in a dictatorship.

the original question refered to protesters breaking the law. was it US specific?
even if so i think the example still stands.
in this debate people have complained about abstract "what if" scenarios that have no bearing on what actually happens. but that is not a what if scenario. that actually happened. it is a real tangible example of what i think is justifiable reasons for breaking the law in protest.

but if you insist on a domestic example what about the japanese internment camps? a japanese person escaping one of those would not have been justified in doing so if they had not used legal court proceedings?

what about rosa parks sitting at the front of the bus?

during the womens suffrage movement women picketed the white house. this was an illegal action. but wasit unjustified?

speaking of MLK, he once pointed out, though he was not the only one that legal channels are supposed to be open and equal to all in theory but in practice they are sometimes closed or unfairly obstructed. when this is the case the system is not democratic in the way that would make civil disobedience unnecessary.

it has been pointed out by activists and legal professionals alike that judicial review is one of the features of american democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it

[oneraindog]

I think you'll find they chose the courts as a first means. In any case, you're attempting to compare a dictatorship to a republic.

im not comparing anything. im using real world examples of protesters unable to do anything but break the law.

[2dumb2kwit]

the original question refered to protesters breaking the law. was it US specific?

I'm not sure, but like crash, I took it to mean in the U.S.

I would think it could be a totally different discussion, in some other countries, as in some places, protesting will get you shot, or hanged.

(BTW, I'm ignoring what Ken said. HAH!)

[rwc1969]

Sorry, but that just isn't true. We've had this conversation on here before. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers, several were physicians, some were merchants and farmers. ....

they weren't poor and without influence. At the time merchants and farmers were the big business of the era. whether they died as paupers is irrelevant.

2d2q, pal34 said we were a democracy. I was the one pointing out that in fact we are not a true democracy, but rather a form of representaive democracy. A huge difference between the two.

This debate is kind of off topic though. The point was that our founding forefathers were considered traitors and terrorists by their own government at the time. So, we see by this that there truly is a fine line between terrorism and patriotism. Don't we?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

[oneraindog]

nazi germany is another good example. hitler rose to power in a democracy (no i am not trying to open the "be ware of democracy" argument, just making the point)

so by the rationale ive heard here against civil disobedience, the resistance movement should have instead tried to take hitler to court? or we should have? who should have? what was the legal course of action in that situation? one which came about within a democratic government.

[trax]

OK OK, I asked nicely in post #52, but everyone just thought "there goes ol' Trax being a smarta$$ again..." so...I understand a couple of laws

1. Law of Gravity

2. Law of the Jungle

No point in protesting or complaining about either one, neither of them can be broken.

[Sarge47]

Trax, you live in Free Traxistan where they only have alcoholic beverages in place of laws!

Here's the sixty-four dollar questions, who decides what's right or wrong? How many does it take? Do we need a majority? MLK was fighting bigotry, a moral issue, is morality the rationale that we have to have? Is it the Constitution, ergo "legality" is the clincher?

I believe that the greatest weapons in our arsenal is truth, justice & education. For years I've watched poor misinformed people protest abortion by standing outside abortion clinics holding up signs & using really nasty language toward those that worked there or were getting abortions. I've been ostracized by Pastors & their wives because I refused to go along with that sort of crap, it just creates negativity & stubborness in the minds of the other side! Just recently the "Pro-life" group won a minor victory without firing a shot. For years a certain lady Director at a large abortion clinic believed that her view was the right one; until she watched a live abortion via sonagram! She saw the doomed unborn child who could not escape the confines of it's Mother's womb try to move away from the approaching implement of death, all to no avail. Since then she has done a 180 on her viewpoint. I believe that Mike Huckabee interviewed her on his news program.

You say that voting doesn't work, then who's right & who's wrong? We have to stand up forthe system & try to fix the problems within it. We can only do that by standing together, not as independents.

[oneraindog]

that is a very good point sarge. it has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong and the difference between the 2 is not confined to the borders of the united states so i would argue that examples of justified civil disobedience are valid whether they happen on the moon or in my back yard.

from ghandis quest for indian independence to MLKs call for black equality, many revolutions would go nowhere were it not for civil disobedience as an implement of protest.

[Ole WV Coot]

Most laws I obey, some I break and often. I personally saw enough stupid protests in DC during the '60s to last me a lifetime. Every time someone got POed in the country they "protested" in DC to make it on national TV. I obeyed the law back then but took strong exception to draft dodgers, military haters, people that didn't like what I had on, how long my hair wasn't. Can't argue with an fool so I might have bent a few civil rights and broke a law or bone or both. I didn't see a protest where laws weren't broken, property destroyed, citizens terrified and inconvenienced and they could have stayed on the monument grounds and got their "message" out to the press which is all they wanted. I did get my opinions across without disturbing the tax paying public.

[Sarge47]

Here's some links on that abortion deal:

Planned Parenthood director resigns after watching abortion on ultrasound
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/68761337.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ltrasound.html

Also, remember what your goal is if you decide to get into "civil disobedience." Do you want people to understand and back you? Or are you just somebody who wants to be known as a "loudmouth, attention-seeking anus?" "Hey! Look at me! I never got the attention I felt that I deserved as a child!"

I remember the idiots who laid down in the street in Ca. to protest the war in Iraq; I'd of used 'em for speed bumps! Then there were those women who did it in a unique way by taking off all of their clothes, now that was okay; I've been sending them more crap that they can "protest" but so far no luck!

Bottom line: What do you hope to accomplish & is your C.D. going to "get it done?"

[Sarge47]

that is a very good point sarge. it has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong and the difference between the 2 is not confined to the borders of the united states so i would argue that examples of justified civil disobedience are valid whether they happen on the moon or in my back yard.

from ghandis quest for indian independence to MLKs call for black equality, many revolutions would go nowhere were it not for civil disobedience as an implement of protest.

Ghandi was a wife abuser & the FBI had some dirt on MLK...Morality from immoral people? Not for me!

[2dumb2kwit]

2d2q, pal34 said we were a democracy.

Actually, I was trying to make the point that we are a democratic republic.

[oneraindog]

Ghandi was a wife abuser & the FBI had some dirt on MLK...Morality from immoral people? Not for me!

are you serious? so the fact that they were flawed imperfect people negates every bit of their efforts??
are you really making the argument that the misdeeds of a person completely negates the worth of anything positive that they might do?
if that is true than every good deed ever done is totally without merit because EVERYONE is flawed and NO ONE is completely moral.

[Rick]

Hey. Hold on. I'm completely moral....Oh, shoot. I thought you said morel. Never mind.