Resistance to unjust laws has been a major part of United States History since its beginnings. The entire nation was formed out of a rebellion from the abusive English. Over time, however, less violent means have been used to express feelings toward an unjust law. Most famously is the example of Martin Luther King Jr. and others who have taken inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, who believed "Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind." It seems that in more recent years, resistance to any law has been deemed a taboo. Perhaps the most prominent instance is that of Edward Snowden. Snowden revealed the true depth of surveillance from US Government Agencies, and was deemed a hero by some for doing so. Nevertheless, Snowden was convicted of espionage and …show more content…
currently seeks asylum in other countries. Both Snowden and King used nonviolent methods to expose injustice, so what made the situations so different? The major difference is the intended affects of their actions. While King and others who formed similar movements wanted to create a better sense of equality in America for everyone, Snowden was "exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety." It is like the government was a mother of several young children.
Say America bakes some cookies and gives half of her children some. Now obviously the other half will proclaim that it is not fair. This is what movements of the 1900s did. They sought to make sure everyone had equal opportunity. But imagine if America baked some cookies to take to her friends, and one child told the others that America had done so. This is a simplified example of Snowden's actions. Snowden didn't help everyone to get along, he merely made the other children mad at their mother for not telling them about cookies. This is the true difference between whether an act of civil disobedience helps or hurts a society. That difference is whether the act brings people together or pushes them apart in the long run. Even a peaceful act can harm relationships between the different races, religions, parties and backgrounds in the United States. But sometimes resisting a law can do both. In more recent years, the forced removal by a lone woman of a Confederate Flag in South Carolina brought both praise and outrage. Such outcomes are not new. Muhammad Ali, the legendary boxer, received support and hate for not accepting the US
Draft. Obviously the prior idea, the intended effects of the act, cannot apply. So, what is the difference between these acts? The woman had other options than to remove the flag. Ali did not. The woman, Bree Newsome, did not have to get onto the flagpole. However, she says that “We removed the flag today because we can’t wait any longer." This is different from most other successful movements. Newsome wanted an instant solution, rather than a lasting one. Thus, she took the quickest and simplest route. Ali, however, had only one way to express his distaste for the draft. That one solution was to defy it. Ali literally could not wait around for anything to change, and had to take this path. Because of this choice, Ali was not allowed to box for four years. This is the key between a helpful and harmful act of civil disobedience, the speed. A quick, easy solution always has unintended and usually poor aftereffects, while a slower, more gradual change leads to a better transition. Thus, there is only one instance where the peaceful defiance of a law can help a nation. First, the act must be intended to bring people and government closer together. Second, direct disobedience must be the only way to show its injustice. Third, the transition must be done slowly and carefully, so that people have time to adapt to the new situation. If any other method is used, if someone seeks to turn people against each other, is someone is too impatient, then such a spontaneous act would divide the nation. Doing so would only be breaking a law, not trying to change it.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency(NSA) leaked affair brought attention to American Citizens causing many arguments. Some argue they trust their government and wouldn’t change a thing about being monitored while others argue that their privacy being invaded is unconstitutional, and as a society living in surveillance, Americans need to reform the ECPA Act, and tell Congress to pass The USA Freedom Act.
If someone broke the law trying to help the American keep their constitutional rights, would you consider them a hero or a criminal? Well that’s exactly what’s going on today with Edward Snowden. In 2013 Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the American people, information that shined a light on the dark things that the U.S government was doing behind closed doors. He revealed that the U.S government has been going against the constitution and taking away our freedoms. The U.S government has been taking away our freedoms however, Snowden is being called the criminal. Thesis Statement here.
"The persecution of the Jews in the General Government in Polish territory gradually worsened in its cruelty. In 1939 and 1940 they were forced to wear the Star of David and were herded together and confined in ghettos. In 1941 and 1942 this unadulterated sadism was fully revealed. And then a thinking man, who had overcome his inner cowardice, simply had to help. There was no other choice."
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
'political persecution' or be sent to the United States to face the death penalty," putting further
According to Martin Luther King Jr., “There are two types of laws: there are just and there are unjust laws” (King 293). During his time as civil rights leader, he advocated civil disobedience to fight the unjust laws against African-Americans in America. For instance, there was no punishment for the beatings imposed upon African-Americans or for the burning of their houses despite their blatant violent, criminal, and immoral demeanor. Yet, an African-American could be sentenced to jail for a passive disagreement with a white person such as not wanting to give up their seat to a white passenger on a public bus. Although these unjust laws have been righted, Americans still face other unjust laws in the twenty-first century.