Paradox Of Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is a paradox. Civility and disobedience diametrically oppose one another; civility implies politeness or a regard to the status quo while disobedience is a refusal to submit to the standard. When these words are coupled together, however, they compliment one another. The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to disregard the obligation of observing a law with the intention of highlighting a need for change. Morality, Religion, and Ethics often play into the decision to willingly break a law which creates more depth behind the practical meaning phrase, because those three tend to emphasize a respect for authority and integrity. When people break the law in the name of civility, they often are asking questions like, “What must I

The status quo or my unshakable belief?” There is a push-and-pull between what is right and what is to be accepted as right. Positive Social change is often the result of the paradox we are analyzing. History attests to this.

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

Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a