How far should a protestor go?

I agree.. any protestor has to stop acting likde a fool ! respecting the law has noth to do with any anger or protest..

Re: How far should a protestor go?

Depends on who the law was written by. Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany had laws that it would have been wholly justified to break. The law is only a valid line if it comes from a valid authority in the first place.

There is something to be said for making the distinction between a need to respect the law in a democracy, but not submitting to the laws drafted by a dictator. But then, even in a democracy there are exceptions. Racial segregation was once inscribed in law in the American South. IMO civil rights activists were justified in violating those laws.

Some of our/your greatest statesmen became great by violating the laws of the land. By declaring independence from the British Crown, for example.

That was a very good point. Those laws that were brought forth by these governments that you have stated were wholly wrong in their existance and some need to be broken. But, how exactly do you tell if a law is justified or otherwise.

If the laws were respected rather than protested against, we'd still have excessive child labor abuses, women and minorities would not be able to vote, we'd still have prohibition, segregated schools and public drinking fountains, bathrooms and eating facilities.

Another very good point but what exactly is justified though? You can easily say this but what makes something justified by the common public?

Why do you have a need for someone else to approve what you protest against? If someone didn't like the fact that you were protesting against a law, does that make you stop protesting? If so, why bother?

To tell you the truth, you brought up an unbelievably good point and one that i totally agree with. I never really thought about it that way but the way that I was stating it, why protest inthe first place. The whole point of protesting is that you want to change something that is.

I would still appreciate more posts if you may have any.

you're asking a big question- "what are ethics?"

of course it's possible to have ethics without receiving a law, but what are they? you're not going to get a complete answer in this thread. you might as well ask, "what constitutes law in the united states?" it's a big study that never ends.

when they needed to change the lack of rights that blacks had in the 1960s, non-violent protests and boycotts worked well, but people got arrested for them. without this kind of movement, it would have just been seen as another race riot.

in my opinion, they were so effective that that today, non-violence is treated as the ultimate virtue of protest. there are open political groups now (that were covert and cia ops during vietnam protests) which sabotage peaceful protests by provoking the protestors without mercy until they snap. finally, both sides incite violence.

civil rights is a tricky one to win these days. some of us are very proud of a free government stacked against having them, and we participate in arguments about whether we're "too free" or not. protests are extra tricky in a world where it would seem no one cares if they are free.