Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice in modern society
Declaration of Independence about freedom and equality
Declaration of Independence about freedom and equality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice in modern society
I believe that peacefully resisting the law negatively impacts our society. Any resistance to the law can turn violent very fast, even if it is 'peaceful' resisting of the law. The laws of the United States of America are in place to protect us and allow us to have freedom. When people begin to resist and fight against these laws, our freedom and safety becomes jeopardized. America, the land of the free, is a place for people to be able to have freedom and feel safe over the time period of their lives, but this cannot happen when people are disobeying or opposing the law. An example of someone resisting the law and risking their freedom and safety of others around them is when they resist arrest. This is not only illegal, but it is also dangerous. …show more content…
When they complain about people constantly resisting the laws, they feel obligated to do the same, because the government is not doing anything to stop it. Any resistance to the law, no matter the situation, is not peaceful. The law is put in place to protect our rights as free citizens, along with our safety, in this great country. The Declaration of Independence states we are all created equally. If we are all created equally, and are guaranteed our freedom and safety, then all people should realize that the law is not trying to harm us. The law is protecting us and all of our rights, not trying to take them away. There is no reason that any citizen should resist the law. Another example of people resisting the law is the Black Lives Matter movement. I believe that all people should be equal, but these protesters and rioters should not resist law. The movement began peacefully, but became violent very fast. The people in the movement began to resist the laws of our country, and then when people began to get in trouble with the law, they act as if they are the victims, even though they are the people in the wrong and rioting and resisting the
people might say that peaceful protests negatively impacts society because it wastes time, and it never works. For example, on January 21,2017, there was a women's march on washington in repsonse to donald trump's win. They exercised their first amendment rights and statements to let him know women have rights. Donald Trump was recognized for his comments about women. The women rights movement caused people to have a different perspective about them. But, i don't believe that peaceful protests negatively effect society because According to data compiled by Erica Chenoweth at the University of Denver and Jeremy Pressman at the University of Connecticut, at least 3.3 million people participated in over 500 Women's marches across the US. That is a huge turnout for solidarity for women. The effect of the marches probably will be there will be more women's
An example can be found where a citizen violated the state law and was sued by the state government. However, if the violation was not prohibited and enforced under the Federal Constitution, he or she could use it as their defense and win the case because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This should not encourage anyone to challenge the laws because the example above does not happen a lot of times in our daily life. In addition, laws which are illegal are usually enforced under both federal and state laws (Federal Judicial Center).
... people have an absolute right to voice their opinions and protest as long as it is done without trampling upon the legal rights of others. However, when any one, or group, attempts to violate the legal rights of others the government not only has the duty but has the Constitutional responsibility to intervene
It is very interesting to see that even though when someone breaks the law in the United States, they will still be protected by that very law. Even as one violates the rights of others, the law will make sure that their rights are protected. It almost seems that has more rights by breaking the law instead of following it. Police are prevented from using extreme force against them and lawyers are at the ready to serve these criminals. Criminals have forfeited their rights when they have violated the rights of others. Why should the law be so intent on protecting their rights, when they have no intent on following the law?
Oscar Wilde, an Irish author, once suggested that if one were to ever look at the discourse of history, they would find that disobedience is man’s original virtue, and through disobedience social progress is made. The study of history is the study of social progress. Social progressions are the changes that occur in society that progress or improve social, political, and economic structures. Social progress can be achieved in several ways, but just like Oscar Wilde, I believe that disobedience is a valuable human trait that just so happens to be a huge part in the progression our society has made and continues to make.
By involving these other groups of people, the issue becomes a much bigger known topic. The whole movement itself is a representation of the people as underdogs.
Peaceful resistance itself does not affect a free society. A people-group can protest any number of laws: voting rights, taxes, and the legality of murder. A majority of society must determine what is best for itself. If the principles of a resistance aligns with the ideals of the society, the pursuit of betterment positively impacts that
When nonviolent civil disobedience occurs, the participating citizens are attempting to bring about positive change to the system--change which has not (and may not have) been brought about by words alone. Given that this constitutional republic is intended to be representative of its citizens in accordance with its fundamental laws, citizens are undoubtedly justified in striving for representation for the public will. This is put succinctly by David Thoreau in the poem Civil Disobedience: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” The government should enact the will of its people, and where people see a law as being unjust this disposition is voided. A purportedly representative governing body should be brought to consider the will of its people in earnest, and peaceful demonstration is the next step where words alone
However, they broke the law by murdering a person and since they are arguing that that they had a good cause and reason to kill them they feel that they should walk free from any consequences at all. These protesters feel that they are making a difference by delegitimizing the president instead of uniting behind him. These protesters are burning and destroying property around these large cities, causing nothing but damage to their own local communities, helping nobody in the long run. If anything, their actions qualify as civil disobedience because they are causing destruction in the cities and believe they are helping their cause of trying to revolt under President Trump. Peacefully protesting is perfectly legal and often times promoted, but what these people are doing is classified as civil disobedience and is destroying our cities and tearing our country apart.
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Even in a democracy there are unjust laws, the question comes down to how we handle these laws. Should we be content to obey these laws, or should we try to change them? Most people in a democracy would agree with the second course as the best. There is a right to "revolution" against injustice and one must refuse to support something that is wrong. People should try to change these laws one way to do that is through peaceful resistance.
They were not protesting anything in particular, the purpose of the protest was to unmask themselves to show that they are normal people. Since they went out in front of millions people and acted this way people lost
Laws are typically known by everyone they apply to, since they dictate people’s way of life by regulating, restricting, and even prohibiting almost everything to keep the population safe and in order. Yet, there are plenty of individuals that believe that laws are unfair, and wish they were either changed or abolished altogether. Some of these people go about this the smart, logical way by trying to legally change laws through politics, protesting, and so on. However, there is a loosely organized group of people in the United States that have decided that the law is so unfair, that they do not have to abide by it, and have decided to start fighting the legal system anyway they see fit. They are called Sovereign Citizens, and they have been
As the rise of leaders such as Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and many more arouse to the movement it initiated many legal
We all know the law exists to protect citizens, but does that make every law correct or ethically sound? Every individual should know societal laws and regulations, but this does not mean that they will coincide with the individual's own set of ethical values. Because of this, I believe that peacefully resisting any type of law is an inalienable human right; it can create a positive impact on a free society without violence, words, or hatred. Any truly free society should be able to exercise the right to disagree and oppose a law but not break it.
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,