How Does Snowden Put Civil Disobedience Good For Society

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.

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

Civil disobedience can negatively affect a free society under false pretenses because it can affect the way someone believes something is right or wrong due to the information that is given ot that is stirred up on social media. Another way it impacts society is because there are aggressive protestors that become dangerous. Protesters aren’t the only ones being disruptive, police officers also participate in the disruptive actions. There were also some aggressors that didn’t want to accept their consequences, but their actions differed from what they wanted. In the twentieth century people believe that violence can be the answer to a situation, but it can actually cause a division in our society. This division will build rage that will affect the nation more severely in the

If we take a closer look at civil disobedience, we can better understand what it means, its goals, and its outcomes. Civil disobedience predominantly exists as direct and non-violent government defiance. Instead of voicing an opinion with a vote or a simple conversation, civil disobedience stands up for what is right using an individual’s whole influence. Therefore, some sacrifices regarding the legality of actions are made in order to preserve the integrity of the mission. In other words, why should a protester follow the law that they are trying to alter? That doesn’t make much sense, therefore civil disobedience allows unjust laws to be broken for the greater good. This method is very effective if, for example, a minority is attempting to

There are many different authors who believe that civil disobedience is not the way to go, that it does not solve anything. For example, Robert A. Goldwin writes in “The Case against Civil Disobedience” how “civil disobedience … is an altogether secondary and derivative matter…” He goes on about how civil disobedience is a way for people who want to stand up for their rights can without any harsh punishment and if these people are too scared to do anything violent. Though Goldwin makes a good point about the unimportance of civil disobedience, the fact is that civil disobedience

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.

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.

While it is hard to see its success in more recent issues, events in the past show the positive changes to society that civil disobedience can cause. Once again, Susan B. Anthony’s campaign for women’s suffrage is a prime example. She was willing to fight against the law even after she was arrested. When the nineteenth amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote, it was given the nickname of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment due to her sacrifices to make it possible. Personally, I am not sure I would have the courage to accept the risks of committing civil disobedience.

The leaks by Snowden were to inform the American people and the rest of the world just how much the government is spying on them. Aside from the privacy violations without any evidence to justify Snowden wanted to point out the flaws with this system, one important flaw being America is spying on countries it is allied with. I would argue that the knowledge of our government's spying outweighs the leak of private information, the end justifies the means. Snowden read each document carefully as to not leak how the systems work or any private information about any N.S.A. agents before leaking them. This is an example of how our government isn’t pure and should be exposed when needed, thus civil disobedience is required to get information similar in nature to

Civilization has, from its genesis, been plagued with intolerable issues, ranging from racial discrimination to breaches of privacy. In the face of such issues has arisen the threat of violence countless times over. However, as we’ve progressed as a race, we have moved from violence and have resorted instead to civil disobedience, a peaceful form of protest in which one refuses to comply with the law and accepts all consequences. A practitioner of civil disobedience is one who will state their cause openly, commit their “crime” peacefully, and go to jail for it in protest. Civil disobedience is inherently good because it holds government accountable for its wrongdoings, calls attention to injustices civilians may not even know about, and expresses

He did one of the most disobedient acts in American history, but it significantly benefitted society as a whole. The N.S.A has access to people’s search history, phone data, and other personal information that should legally be acceptable, and Snowden published information that outlined this breach of privacy to the public. Snowden’s act of civil disobedience gave awareness to the problem, and it is up to the American people and members of the government to stop the privacy invasion. For instance, a few years ago, a mass shooter lost his phone, and the FBI wanted Apple to open his phone to let them see if he was conspiring about the shooting with anyone, but Apple would not open the phone for them because it was a breach of privacy. Thanks to the information published by Snowden, the American public now has the chance to act on this

Peaceful resistance to a law is exactly what a free society needs in order to manage the "free" status. If we were forced to obey every law without a say, we would not be a truly free society. Civil disobedience is one of the most positive impacts the people can have on their own government, especially one that claims to be one of the people, for the people, and by the people. When the people disagree with a law they have always and will always have a right to stand against it. It is a vital part of an American's first amendment rights: the freedom of speech (among other things).

In a free society, people are given the opportunity to stand up for what they believe in. I believe that the act of civil disobedience, or peaceful resistance to laws, positively impacts a free society for a number of reasons. Civil disobedience can have a positive effect when the government is flawed or when the law being resisted is wrong or prejudiced. In these situations, civil disobedience and peaceful resistance can mend some of the injustices that were being inflicted. All governments, including democracies, are flawed.

In my opinion, in a democracy, Civil Disobedience is not an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. By definition a democracy is an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights, appropriate is “to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.”, weapon is “something (such as a skill, idea, or tool) that is used to win a contest or achieve something”, justice is “the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals”, and Civil Disobedience is “the refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something”. By these definitions, it is never appropriate to use Civil Disobedience to get justice. In a true democracy, if there ever was a problem or something one did not agree with, one could bring it up to a leader and they would have to acknowledge the problem. They would have to do this due to the fact that everyone has equal right in a true democracy. Everyone would have to vote, and get

Civil disobedience is tantamount to raising the red signal against democracy when the latter deviates from the right course in accordance with the views of exponents. It can be considered as a kind of opposition or rather a very advanced shape of political and social resistance. Civil disobedience is not a commonplace form of political opposition, not because it is a negative form of political resistance, but because it occurs very rarely. It can be regarded as the most sophisticated case of the embodiment of democracy. Therefore, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine a democracy without the freedom of opposition including the right of civil disobedience. Freedom of