What about civil disobedience?

When it comes to civil disobedience as a form of protest, there are many questions that surround the ethics, the purpose, and the functionality of its use as a catalyst for change. Many questions arise: 1. it is ethical to break the law for a political change? 2. is it worth it to willingly accept the consequences of breaking the law? 3. will that action will make any headway for its cause?

To start the conversation, we should first have a clear understanding of exactly what exactly the term “civil disobedience” encompasses. What it means to commit an act of civil disobedience is to intentionally, non-violently, and conscientiously perform an action that is in violation of some law or policy, typically one that pertains to the issue that a protest group is most concerned about. In a case of civil disobedience, an individual or group who intentionally commits an act such as this will typically go on to accept the legal consequences of whatever offense they have intentionally committed. Basically, protestors are breaking the law or disobeying a policy deemed unjust, or morally wrong in order to bring attention to a need for some kind of change.

There is an important distinction to be made, however, between civil disobedience and legally protesting. The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government to change is granted and protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that marching along the streets, sidewalks, and other public property is the right of every American Citizen. You cannot be arrested for exercising your First Amendment right to peaceful assembly and petition. However, you also cannot be arrested broadly for “civil disobedience” either. A person who commits an act of civil disobedience can and is likely to be arrested and charged with the public offense that they willingly and knowingly committed, however they are also likely to face different sentencing from judges, considering the nature and intent of the crime that was technically committed. The intent is what differentiates an act of civil disobedience from a typical public offense.

So why is it that intentionally breaking the law is considered a legitimate form of protest? In some cases, it is because these acts prove a point. Typically in cases of civil disobedience, the groups or individuals committing illegal acts do so in hopes that it will highlight the gaps between the law and justice, and allow for increased attention and conversation surrounding the righteousness of that specific law or policy. This is also why individuals who commit acts of civil disobedience agree to the consequences of their offenses: to make an example of injustice and to mobilize the public to fight for change. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “If you confront a man who has been cruelly misusing you and say ‘punish me, if you will; I do not deserve it, but I will accept it so that the world will know that I am right and you are wrong,’ you will have a powerful weapon.”

A famous example would be in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1st of 1955. On this day, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the colored section of a public bus to a white man when asked to by the driver. By doing so, Parks was non-violently and conscientiously violating a city ordinance that ruled her to do so if the section of the bus reserved for whites was already full. Parks was later arrested and fined, to which she willingly complied, thus sparking the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, which lasted 381 days. During this time, the black population of Montgomery, Alabama refused to ride public transit, costing the city the loss of 70% of their typical revenue in bus fare, and instead organized carpools to meet their transportation needs until the city would meet their demands. This led to the end of racially segregated seating on buses, as the supreme court held up a decision that ruled it a violation of the 14th Amendment.

There are many other historical cases of civil disobedience in which an individual or group intentionally breaks a law, faces the consequences, and by doing so, gains attention and support for a movement away from an immoral law or policy. Another example would be the 1990 refusal to pay the poll tax in central London in order to protest unfair voting policies, ultimately leading to a major disruption in the tax collecting system, and eventually a massive riot leading to the abolition of the poll tax of March 1991.

The pattern in all these cases is disruption. The reason that civil disobedience is such an effective form of protest is because it acts as a catalyst for distributing the power of leverage into the hands of the people in times of need for policy change. When it becomes evident that the people hold in their hands a bargaining chip, acts of civil disobedience are like matches to a flame, lighting the very first sparks of a negotiating process between government officials and protesters that eventually leads to concessions of the people’s wants. As seen in these examples, when the people have the power to disrupt important parts of daily life, such as the production of goods, transportation, tax revenue, or even access to government buildings, they have the power to make demands of their representative government.

This is what is happening in Canton, Ohio right now. When protesters spend their days marching the streets, shouting chants at the top of their lungs, and blocking off busy intersections and city buildings, they are doing more than simply trying to get your attention. Though it is still unclear whether these acts are to be labeled civil disobedience (considering the controversy shrouding the true “lawfulness” of these actions), the most critical piece is ensuring a show of the power of disruption to those who have the ability to enact police reform. Civil disobedience is a tool of leverage, meaning that until the people see the change that they demand, the city will continue to be disrupted. When the power is in the hands of the people, civil disobedience is a critical tool for enacting change and should be used at any time it is felt that a policy or ordinance is other than just. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”