Civil Disobedience: Non Violent Protests

1469 Words6 Pages
People have been using civil disobedience to display their discontent with the government for centuries. Civil disobedience can be described as refusing to comply with a law or policy that is believed to be unjust in a non-violent, peaceful form of protest. Civil disobedience is justified when the protests are non-violent, the protesters follow the guidelines set by the First Amendment, and the motivation for change is logical. To begin, non-violent protests are harmless in that no one’s well-being or life is threatened by the protesters. The protesters do not want any violence. According to best-selling author Annie B. Bond, this is because they hope to “persuade the opponent of advantages to the way of love, cooperation, and peace,” instead (Bond). Those participating in civil disobedience simply wish to express condemnation of a law or policy and raise public awareness about the issue, with hopes of igniting change, describes Kimberley Brownlee. One example of an innocent act of civil disobedience is Rosa Park’s objection to segregation. In 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress, refused to give up her seat to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama. The Staff also mentions that at this time white people had priority over black people…show more content…
For example, in the college student’s case, the student’s themselves did not engage in violence, but the white people who opposed them did, thus, indirectly resulting in some sort of violence ( In this setting, the violence is acceptable because the protestors themselves are not actively participating in harmful activity; it is instead, the disagreeing public making the situation dangerous. For example, as previously stated, the students would not even fight back after being injured. They instead curled up into balls on the floor and waited for the white people to stop assaulting them
Open Document