Civil disobedience is the way in which peaceful resistance comes to play. Gandhi in Gandhi and Civil Disobedience states that “In my humble opinion, noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good”, this is significant because when people riot, burn buildings or make threats, that is not anymore effective as when people hold up signs and chant. Peaceful resistance to laws negatively impact a free society by resorting to violence, there are people who get overly excited about their cause and forget why they began to protest. Peaceful resistance gets out of hand when people lose the real reason why they started. After they lose their way they just try to get noticed by rioting. Major riots get on the news and get noticed. Little picketers that just chant do not get on the news and are barely ever noticed.
Peaceful resistance against laws is not always effective because it does not get the type of publicity as non peaceful resistance gets. For instance at the women's march Madonna stated “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House. But I know that this won’t change anything.” She only said this statement …show more content…
Gandhi tried the approach to non violent protests and his people ended up disappointing him by advocating violent acts. Gandhi in Gandhi and Civil Disobedience said that “Distrust spilled over into violence. He spoke out for peace and forgiveness.” This is significant because unlike Gandhi some of his followers were done with non violent protesting. His people wanted to show the world something more than they already were. The only way to get noticed is by making violent acts toward the thing that started the protesting in the first pace. This negatively impacts the free society by starting riots and giving people unnecessary faults against