The law is meant to preserve order, safety, and other aspects of society, and generally should not be disobeyed. However, civil disobedience is crucial to society. Civil disobedience improves society and keeps society and government accountable to their respective duties.
Civil disobedience is a necessary civic duty, necessary to rein in government and society and keep them accountable to their respective duties. An example of this is the release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. The American government was being secretive about its actions in the Vietnam War, and a democratic government should not be secretive about its actions. The U.S. is a representative democracy who prides itself on the principles of democracy and individual freedom. It has an entire branch of government--Congress--who is directly elected by the people,
…show more content…
It is the government’s duty to be transparent to its citizens, so that its citizens are informed about the actions of the government, allowing for American citizens to make informed decisions about the government and keep the government accountable to itself. However, during the Vietnam war, the government was not performing its duty of being transparent to its citizens. It was not fulfilling its duty as a democratic government. Therefore, action must be taken to rectify this, and make the American government to be responsible to its citizens again. Civil disobedience can rectify problems and keep society and the government accountable to their duties, making civil disobedience a necessary civic duty. Thus, when Daniel Ellsberg was smuggling copies of confidential documents out of the Pentagon to unveil to the public what would be the Pentagon Papers, he was performing his civic duty. He was making the government transparent and, as a result, responsible to its people. Thus, his act of civil disobedience--illegally smuggling confidential government documents and publishing them--helped to make the government be more
In summation, civil disobedience is a tool that has been used to improve our freedoms through the decades. It has allowed for peaceful ways for the people to stand up for something they believe in. As Henry David Thoreau said, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time, what I think is right.” That is what makes a society free, the ability to disagree with others,
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 is a crucial part of any free society, especially a society that wishes to give its citizens the most liberty possible. Looking back on American history, one can see that the colonists originally protested the laws that Britain had imposed, and had done so peacefully. By not paying taxes and by assembling outside public offices, the colonists disobeyed British laws and the British crown. Their protests not only helped spark the American Revolution, but also made light of the fact that any free society relies on its citizens to disobey the government, especially when it's done peacefully.
Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.
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
Civil disobedience allows citizens in the free society of the United States to express their opinions in a way that is sure to evoke governmental attention, while enlightening the public
Civil Disobedience makes governments more accountable for their actions and has been an important catalyst for overcoming unpopular government policies. To voice his disgust with slavery, in 1849 Henry David Thoreau published his essay, Civil Disobedience, arguing that citizens must not allow their government to override their principles and have a civic duty to prevent their government from using unjust means to ends. The basis for Thoreau’s monumental essay was his refusal to pay a poll tax, which subsequently landed him a night in county jail. In his passage: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear
While growing up, our parents taught us what was right and what was wrong based on their beliefs and views. When we were younger, we were taught to follow and obey those who were older than us and possessed a higher authoritative status. One’s reasoning for being obedient includes: religious beliefs, background, and work ethics. Civil disobedience played a large role in America. Creating protests, riots, and sit-ins, America had many examples of disobedience. In America, we value our rights as citizens and individuals. We have the right to protest as stated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which is called Freedom of Speech. According to the Webster Dictionary, civil disobedience is said to be “the refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.” Citizens are willing to accept the legal consequences associated with their disobedient actions. How does the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Fining and jail time are the legal consequences enforced by authority but also there is a trend of change. I believe civil disobedience is justified simply by your own personal beliefs and the rights you attain as a citizen. The law is the law, if you disobey; the authoritative figure is responsible for giving a consequence.
The human race doesn’t take injustice lying down. Over the past hundred years, there has been many examples of people taking a stand for their own rights and freedoms through acts of civil disobedience, defined as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. While a quick glance at today’s society does show a much more accepting and proper view of people of every race, religion and sexuality, our world does not come without its injustices. I believe that these major injustices keep civil disobedience extremely relevant in our current, modern world.
Overall, Civil Disobedience is an important part of the United States and what it is. If America did not have the laws protecting those who had protested against the crimes of the government, it would not have made the progress that it has. Civil Disobedience is a part of the American Dream and must be protected as
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.
Civil disobedience comes in every package under the sun. Whether it be Henry David Thoreau refusing to pay his taxes to protest the Mexican-American War or Mohammed Ali refusing the draft because he believed that they were sending him to fight for rights in another country that he didn’t have in his own. The importance of civil disobedience, particularly in those with influence over the people, is often overshadowed by opposition leaders and naysayers on the other side of the argument. But civil disobedience has kept America moving forward for over 240 years and it won’t be stopping any time soon.
“The Vietnam War was arguably the most traumatic experience for the United States in the twentieth century.” (Donald M. Goldstein). Many times in America, our leaders have made impulsive decisions that, though persuaded by the correct intentions, resulted in even greater turmoil. The quoted source reflects the feelings of some citizens that view the United States as falling short when trying to lend a hand in the fulfillment of South Vietnam’s desire to become a democracy. In the case of the Vietnam War, the results of the decision to aid South Vietnam in its efforts to exclude itself from communism were not as triumphant as the United States had expected. The United States willingly sent its troops into a foreign country to help fight for its freedom; however, only some Americans were able to view this as loyalty to one of its allies. Many different opinions on the United States’ involvement in the war is questioned, and sometimes even condemned, by our society today.
V. Sebelius (a case in which Hobby Lobby argued that they should not have to allot for contraceptives in their health care plan) said "All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others." We no longer live in a time where we can expect our leaders to always do what is right, and this sometimes leaves us no choice other than to disobey our laws in order to follow our consciences. Another frequently discussed example of civil disobedience in modern times is the case of Edward Snowden. Snowden is infamously known as the former NSA employee who leaked classified information online which revealed that the NSA was collecting phone records of hundreds of millions of citizens with no prior connections to any terrorist organizations. John Cassidy of The New Yorker quoted Daniel Ellsberg (the perpetrator of the leaked Pentagon Papers) as saying “Snowden did what he did because he recognized for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity.” Snowden did what he did because he was left with no choice. The NSA had overstepped their bounds into the privacy of innocent civilians and Snowden refused to let it
The question whether or not civil disobedience is justifiable in a democracy has been a controversial matter among thinkers and politicians. Views vary from almost absolute support to the legitimacy of civil disobedience in democratic societies to conservative support and to the rejection of the idea.