Thread: Civil Disobedience is not a legitimate Protest Tactic

In another thread a certain liberal claimed that protesting necessarily involves civil disobedience.

This is a fallacy.

Civil disobedience is not a legitimate exercise in free speech. Free speech means just that. Talking and use of your voice and the passing out of flyers. That is free speech.

Blocking traffic, attempting to shut down commerce, financially or economically damaging businesses and other means of "protest" are not protest but intimidation and extortion.

You are more than welcome to gather together in a park, pass out flyers and try to convince people to see the world your way, but if no one listens to you, or the Government or corporations fail to heed your protests and calls for change, then too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad, you have to live with it. You are not allowed to try and intimidate or threaten people, businesses, Government officials or private citizens and other entities.

I don't know who taught these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kids that Civil disobedience and protest are one and the same. They are not.

You are more than welcome to speak out against an action, you are not allowed to attempt to physically stop the action you are protesting against. Do you understand now?

When you use your voice or the press to speak out. That is Free Speech. But you are not allowed to engage in direct action against those your protesting against.

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849.

In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_D..._%28Thoreau%29

More at the link.....

Originally Posted by Margot

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849.

In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_D..._%28Thoreau%29

More at the link.....

I know who Thoreau was and Walden Pond is little better than toilet paper.

You are not allowed to engage in direct action against the entities that you are protesting against, regardless of what Thoreau said and I wipe my ass with "On Walden Pond" and his treatise "On Civil Disobedience".

Thoreau is the only idiot I ever read who could watch ants fighting their little ant wars in his wood pile and turn it into a treatise on society. He was a hermit and a vagabond and the only people who worship his writings are academic socialists.

How true,And there's a Huge difference between mounting a
Sit-in on a college campus or at a State Capital than actually
disrupting the normal flow of events {traffic,other pedestrians
or camping out and breaking regular curfew} not to mention
illicit activity like theft,drug-use,sex in public,urinating in public,
throwing things like bottles at cops etc.}
These OWS Protests can and do become RIOTS.
Liberals and our Democrats just don't care about breaking laws
and disturbing the peace,as long as it fits Their agenda.
Democrats need to be painted correctly with long broad strokes
of Hypocrisy and Unamerican activity.I have no problem with
orderly passive resistance { a Sit-in } but that's not what these
OWS Punks are doing.They are taking over parks,camping out,
disrupting traffic and committing felonies.As Michael Savage said,last
week,any Mayor who allows this to continue need be sued.
ALL Protestors need to be arrested,and treated as if a Riot.
Any Lawyer Defending said arrested Protestor should Immediately
have their law license revoked.

Originally Posted by Margot

Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849.

In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_D..._%28Thoreau%29

More at the link.....

Yet,Thoreau,a hero to me,never harmed as much a fly in his life.
He choose to live alone at Walden pond,building by himself with
sparse help a tiny shack and becoming a hermit.After all his motivation
was the love and observation of Nature.I'll have to go back and find
if Thoreau ever acted in a rebellious way to any member of society.

Originally Posted by Foolardi

Yet,Thoreau,a hero to me,never harmed as much a fly in his life.
He choose to live alone at Walden pond,building by himself with
sparse help a tiny shack and becoming a hermit.After all his motivation
was the love and observation of Nature.I'll have to go back and find
if Thoreau ever acted in a rebellious way to any member of society.

A legitimate withdrawal from a society you disagree with is one thing, but to engage in direct action against those you protest against is another. Thoreau has been misinterpreted since he wrote his writings and honestly I'm not impressed with the man.

Do you think people should just speachify in an orderly manner and not upset the sheep?

No, hell no!

While the vandalism is uncalled for the public disruption is necessary. There is no point in demonstrating if no one notices.

If the masses, calling for justice, upset the conservative sensibilities of the well off - - - too bad.

Originally Posted by stonehorse

Do you think people should just speachify in an orderly manner and not upset the sheep?

In a legitimate, democratic society such as the USA? Yes.

No, hell no!

Then you will get your head beat by the authorities.

While the vandalism is uncalled for the public disruption is necessary. There is no point in demonstrating if no one notices.

That's funny. They seemed to notice Glen Beck's rally. They seemed to notice the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, they seemed to notice when MLK Jr and those people hit the mall. Not a single bit of public disruption was involved in any of those great moments in protest history.

If the masses, calling for justice, upset the conservative sensibilities of the well off - - - too bad.

Calling for justice is okay, engaging in direct action against those that won't deliver it to you on your time table is not.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

In another thread a certain liberal claimed that protesting necessarily involves civil disobedience.

This is a fallacy.

Civil disobedience is not a legitimate exercise in free speech. Free speech means just that. Talking and use of your voice and the passing out of flyers. That is free speech.

Blocking traffic, attempting to shut down commerce, financially or economically damaging businesses and other means of "protest" are not protest but intimidation and extortion.

You are more than welcome to gather together in a park, pass out flyers and try to convince people to see the world your way, but if no one listens to you, or the Government or corporations fail to heed your protests and calls for change, then too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad, you have to live with it. You are not allowed to try and intimidate or threaten people, businesses, Government officials or private citizens and other entities.

I don't know who taught these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kids that Civil disobedience and protest are one and the same. They are not.

You are more than welcome to speak out against an action, you are not allowed to attempt to physically stop the action you are protesting against. Do you understand now?

When you use your voice or the press to speak out. That is Free Speech. But you are not allowed to engage in direct action against those your protesting against.

The problem comes when the government decides to restrict free speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

They can chose the "the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression". So it's not really "free speech" any longer, it's "free-ish speech".

No wonder people have ignored the other rules, when the government restricts your constitutionally "guaranteed " rights.

Originally Posted by Leffe

The problem comes when the government decides to restrict free speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

They can chose the "the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression". So it's not really "free speech" any longer, it's "free-ish speech".

No wonder people have ignored the other rules, when the government restricts your constitutionally "guaranteed " rights.

It has always been that way in America. Why are you complaining now?

We have always placed a high value on public order.