Civil Disobedience Dannon Olsen The line between a free society and a lawless society is an ever changing, grey line. A commonly disputed resident of this murky border is civil disobedience. Before one can delve into this topic, he must make clear that civil disobedience is not an excuse; it is a motivation, and of which the actor of understands and accepts that they are breaking the law and consequences are a viable result. Civil disobedience has a prudent position in any free society, but only if performed correctly. This form of protest is a way for the citizens to show that they are morally unable to accept a legislation, while still accepting that they are liable to it. It also is an essential tool for change and forces the public to …show more content…
Quaker, Fred Moore Jr., who was imprisoned for refusing the draft. In receiving the draft notice he refused to go, protested it, and was summoned to court. Next is where the difference between civil disobedience and criminal activity is drawn; but to understand it, we must first, also delve into the case of Edward Snowden. Snowden was an employee of the CIA who illegally leaked government information because he believed the intelligence community was intruding on the privacy of the citizens. There is a huge difference between these men and it is not necessarily whether one was right or wrong, the methods used to protest, but their actions afterwards: Moore attended his court session and after being found guilty, refused to appeal while Snowden fled the country, to Hong Kong, to avoid arrest. The actions seen in Moore show that he understands that while he may not agree with the laws of his nation, but that he understands the laws apply to him, thus strengthening a free society. On the other side of this societal coin is Snowden's fleeing of the country, while his initial actions are admirable, his avoiding arrest shows a feeling that the law doesn’t apply to someone if they disagree with …show more content…
The most essential part of civil disobedience is that it is done out of hope that the legislation in question will be changed, not in anger because it was passed. One should think of the events of Tiananmen Square in 1989. On this day a large crowd of Chinese citizens gathered and peacefully protested, despite being told to leave, thus breaking the law, and didn’t retaliate when the government attacked them. By doing this they were willing to sacrifice themselves to gain the basic rights they felt they deserved. By then they had all broken a law, understood they would face consequences, but they held the hope that they could fix their country. The failure to protest correctly can be witnessed through the recent anti-Trump riots during the inauguration. These were the actions that a lawless society would take. Despite the intended messages of the the rioters, the issue is their delivery. By taking the law into their own hands they are both assaulting the country for which they live and rather than working for change, they are simply attempting to demonstrate the fact that they are angry. It is a case of complaining rather than offering a