Civil Disobedience Necessary?

The idea of civil disobedience is now more relevant than ever. The entire political field has been flipped on its head in the past few months. Each branch of government has been completely changed, and because of this, nobody really knows how social issues are going to be affected. All of this confusion and uncertainty has brought up a question. Is civil disobedience a necessary aspect of society, or is it just a disruption of everyday order? Should we respect people expressing their issues with the law, or should we look down upon these people as if they are overstepping their boundaries?

After the election of our 45th president, Donald J. Trump, there have been many acts of resistance, mostly because of his controversial statements about

While the traditional, and emotionally moving, walks are, in my opinion, more powerful, the idea of a group of people from around the world expressing their opinion instantaneously for everyone to see is sort of magical as well. Every person, with an internet connection, at least, has the chance to voice their opinions on a grand scale without the fear of disrupting society. However, there are negatives to this as well. Without boundaries, people's opinions on the internet can get lumped together and be seen as a monolith of rude, incomprehensible people speaking irrationally.

With today's abundance of technological advancements, it becomes easy to undermine the powerful idea of civil disobedience and compare it to something like simple hate speech. Morris Liebman's article about the act of civil disobedience lumped the idea with simple lawbreaking. It was as if Rosa Parks' powerful move to stay in her seat on the bus was as reprehensible as a gas station robbery. While one is a statement about equality and human relations from, according to Prerana Korpe, "the mother of the civil rights movement," the other is a disruption that is only for the criminal's

We swear by the words of people from 300 years ago. And while Liebman may say that disobeying these words is akin to disrupting society, the whole point of the Constitution and the law system in our country was to be flexible. Not only that, but it was also built on people being mad with oppression. I feel like people who want to express their feelings of oppression, in a nonviolent way, are, if anything, channeling the ideals of the founding fathers, at least more than the detractors of civil disobedience. A great example of this is with Edward Snowden, a notorious whistle-blower that wanted to expose the surveillance of the government. Is he a criminal? Yes. Did he threaten national security? Yes. But, did he expose an injustice that he wanted to change? Absolutely. Even if he broke the law on an extreme measure, he was fighting for what he thought was right. I personally would not condone his actions from a legal standpoint, but as a human being who, predictably, would love privacy to be a basic right, I think he was justified in his