How Does Snowden Have A Negative Effect On The American Citizen

It’s hard to make people listen. It’s hard to make people want change. And using violence brings a bad reputation to what one is trying to bring attention to. Thus, peaceful protesting and civil disobedience are important tools to positively impact a free society. Accepting the consequences of civil disobedience proves to the world that one will sacrifice whatever is necessary to achieve what they are fighting for, which strengthens their message even more.

Edward Snowden is responsible for exposing these government secrets. Many call this an act of treason, but it can also be seen as an act of civil disobedience. The most peaceful nature of his rebellion, and the unconstitutional behavior that it consequentially exposed qualify his actions. Although it was wrong of him to escape the consequences of his actions by fleeing to Hong Kong, his actions were ultimately beneficial to the American public. Being spied upon by the government is a direct violation of our right to privacy, and hiding it from the public is wrong as well. From John Cassidy’s article, “Why Edward Snowden is a hero,” he quotes Ellsberg; “‘This wholesale invasion of Americans and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we are trying to protect.’” The act of bringing these facts to light is an act of trying to preserve our liberty, and that’s what civil disobedience is all about.

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

Peaceful resistance to laws is one of the strongest and most important foundations of a free society. Countless peaceful demonstrations have been led in the history of the United States, with positive outcomes that have helped shape the country.

Peaceful protests, that is a protest without violence, are a way to try and persuade those in power to enact or not enact a certain law. This is known as acts of civil disobedience. A typical example of this are rallies or protests against something, where people gather peacefully for or against the same thing. People engaging in civil disobedience could also engage in vows of silence, marching, fasting, and many other peaceful ways to stand up against the inequalities or injustices that they are experiencing. The reason that this is done and is important is because the other option is to violently protest or cause more problems. This is not a good way to go about it because even if it comes from a justified place of hurt or anger, it could result in more harm and arrests than are already happening. Even if theses protests or marches get intense, fights breaking out can happen but the goal is always to be nonviolent. The reasons that civil disobedience is seen in such a negative light is because many people equate it to the violent examples. They view it as the people who are violently protesting, getting pepper sprayed and arrested by cops. Even that isn’t a justified opinion because those people getting paper sprayed and arrested often times are

America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.

Though, I feel strongly that no law should be broken, I do see purpose in the peaceful disobedience provided you are willing to suffer the consequences. Therefore I would have to agree that it positively impacts a free society. We are all under strict laws and it is our freedom to either obey or not, with the latter resulting in consequence. Take for instance, the protest against injustice, the harmless act that took place in the Negro movement with Martin L. King. Not to mention the fact pointed out in Arguments against Civil Disobedience, sums up the fact that if we do not argue a point, another point would never be made. Not all situations are to be defended but some should. It is like a growth among us, which completely leads me to disagree with (as mentioned in the attacks), self-law making. There must be a form of discussion taking place (within certain levels of citizens) in order to advance in changes to laws as they were originally written. That is what makes us a free society.

The National Security Agency over the past few years was revealed to have spied on American citizens under what can be considered illegal or unconstitutional circumstances which sparked concern and outrage across most of America. This was first recognized in 2013 when the whistleblower Edward Snowden or traitor as the United States government considers him, leaked

Thomas Jefferson clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Exactly what Jefferson meant by Liberty in this statement was unclear and has been subject of great debate over the years. There is further examination of the use of the word Liberty in the U.S. Constitution. It was stated in Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore, by Constitutional law, it is legal to exercise ones right of peaceful civil disobedience. I believe peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. This is due to the fact that it exercises the rights we are given in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Two documents that run, support, and are the foundation or our nation.

Our nation was built on civil disobedience and it has always been a privilege we have held high. It is for this very reason why the First Amendment of our Constitution outlines the right to a peaceful protest among other rights most important to us. But over time, some members of our nation have lost sight of this liberty and see peaceful resistance as nothing more than groups of people who have no respect for the law. But civil disobedience is not doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Civil disobedience is actively protesting what is morally wrong and is the way to a more free and just society.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once claimed that the only thing to fear is fear itself, and besides the natural phobias of life people endure, he is correct. President Thomas Jefferson, however, disagreed and claimed something different: “[Insurrection] is the only thing that we have to fear” (Mirkin 69). Speaking for the government at the time, Thomas Jefferson believed that civil disobedience varies in effectiveness and justifiability depending on the reason behind it. His theory is applicable today when speaking of America’s struggles, especially pertaining to the Civil Rights Movement. When peacefully resisting laws, however, there is a fine line between ego-fulfilling, which negatively impacts society, and selfless resistance, which is beneficial for

The United States history is filled with disobedience, it can be said that this very country was founded on acts of disobedience, except they weren't always so civil. If you can get across a point without endangering civilians does that make the argument less valid? Does the lack of bloodshed make the the cause less relevant. It is my belief that civil disobedience has been and will always be necessary, especially in this day in age with growing friction between the government and the governed. Acts of civil disobedience not only positively impacts the movement towards creating and maintaining a free society, but also reinforces

The privacy of American citizens has been long debated ever since the N.S.A. was revealed to the public on what it was doing. Since then, American citizens have been arguing over what the N.S.A. should and shouldn 't be doing. This has lead to the government changing some things, but not everything and causing the American citizens to get upset and wonder what is and isn 't being watched. We go through on a daily basis wondering if our next phone call, that next email, our websites we browse and even our next text message is being monitored by the government and if it is will it get flagged as something they deem worthy of investigating into. This constant fear has us wondering what we should and shouldn 't be posting on various social media sites, taking pictures of or even talking about. By questioning what the N.S.A. is doing, we leave ourselves pondering what the government should do to adjust what control the N.S.A. should have, the activities it should be conducting, who they should be monitoring and what gets flagged as warranting further investigation. Many people believe that the N.S.A. should have restrictions placed on it that prevent it from having complete access to everything, in which if they are going to be able to access anything they want to they need to inform the public on what information they are going to get and how they use it as without this information being

In addition to the U.S. being in an uproar, it probably did not do much to make Snowden any happier since he had to seek asylum in a foreign country. This makes Snowden unethical because the consequences of his actions resulted in an overall decrease in

In my perpective Snowden is a hero. Not because he broke into NSA records and expose their mischievous ways, but because he sacrificed his freedom. Thanks to his sacrifice, people of the United States were made aware that we were being spied upon, which we already assumed, but did not want to believe. Did it change anything? Did anything change when President Nixon’s administration was caught spying on Democratic National Committee’s Watergate headquarters? Has anything changed with Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton email scandal? Obama “The Villian” let's say for the sake of the argument declined all allegations and fed us another lie to cover up the bigger issue. In my perspective, heroes are not defined by their super powers or