Peaceful Civil Disobedience
I believe that peaceful civil disobedience is beneficial to society. The main reason I believe this is because it brings issues to light that the public would not have known about otherwise. It makes headlines, and if it is truly an issue worth changing then the public will make their opinion known and, if things work out, the underlying issue will be solved. The downside being that the civil disobedience may have harmed business or government briefly by breaking the law. I think that the trade off is worth it, even if nothing gets changed the public is still more aware of what is going on in their government, and that is always a good thing. However, if the civil disobedience becomes violent, it basically always has the opposite effect, and
…show more content…
turns the public against the protesters side.
A great example of civil disobedience bringing an issue to light is Rosa Park’s refusal to move from her seat on the bus. Her act was one of the first demonstrations against segregation, and she got the support of Martin Luther King Jr. He lead a boycott of the bus line for over a year. The event generated a plethora of headlines, and brought the issue of segregation to the forefront of public opinion. Her court case eventually went all the way up to the supreme court, and they deemed the bus segregation unconstitutional. Rosa’s act of civil disobedience brought an issue to the public eye, and resulted in that issue being resolved by the supreme court. However if the protests and boycotts became violent, then the public surely will have sided against the movement.
Another issue that has been brought to the public eye by civil disobedience is government monitoring by Edward Snowden.
He unveiled the extent of NSA spying, and generated a massive number of headlines and discussion on whether what he did was right or not. For example the article by Jeffrey Toobin says that he could have followed the laws regarding whistle blowing or went to congress, and not just release everything in one big act of civil disobedience. I believe that what he did was the best way to bring attention to the issue: by being disobedient. If he had done things according to the government, only people who follow events in government closely would know what was going on, and the public would still be unaware. But by creating controversy he drew the public to the issue, instead of trying to quietly fix it with little help. While the government has not made any drastic changes, his whistleblowing has brought the fact of the NSA spying to public light and made people aware of just what goes on behind the scenes.
To wrap it up, I believe that peaceful civil disobedience is beneficial to society. My reasoning being that the peaceful disobedience generates headlines about the injustice the group is protesting, and leads to discussion about the issue that would have otherwise went unknown to the public. Even if the government does not change, the public still deserves to know. However if the disobedience becomes violent, then it has the opposite effect and the public sides against the
protesters.
turns the public against the protesters side.
A great example of civil disobedience bringing an issue to light is Rosa Park’s refusal to move from her seat on the bus. Her act was one of the first demonstrations against segregation, and she got the support of Martin Luther King Jr. He lead a boycott of the bus line for over a year. The event generated a plethora of headlines, and brought the issue of segregation to the forefront of public opinion. Her court case eventually went all the way up to the supreme court, and they deemed the bus segregation unconstitutional. Rosa’s act of civil disobedience brought an issue to the public eye, and resulted in that issue being resolved by the supreme court. However if the protests and boycotts became violent, then the public surely will have sided against the movement.
Another issue that has been brought to the public eye by civil disobedience is government monitoring by Edward Snowden.
He unveiled the extent of NSA spying, and generated a massive number of headlines and discussion on whether what he did was right or not. For example the article by Jeffrey Toobin says that he could have followed the laws regarding whistle blowing or went to congress, and not just release everything in one big act of civil disobedience. I believe that what he did was the best way to bring attention to the issue: by being disobedient. If he had done things according to the government, only people who follow events in government closely would know what was going on, and the public would still be unaware. But by creating controversy he drew the public to the issue, instead of trying to quietly fix it with little help. While the government has not made any drastic changes, his whistleblowing has brought the fact of the NSA spying to public light and made people aware of just what goes on behind the scenes.
To wrap it up, I believe that peaceful civil disobedience is beneficial to society. My reasoning being that the peaceful disobedience generates headlines about the injustice the group is protesting, and leads to discussion about the issue that would have otherwise went unknown to the public. Even if the government does not change, the public still deserves to know. However if the disobedience becomes violent, then it has the opposite effect and the public sides against the
protesters.