Civil disobedience

i don't have much against peole who rally on the streets with picket signs and all. but i hope people know the difference between expressing freely their thoughts on the streets and breaking the laws. obviously, here in the philippines, it's more of a hobby already. a small issue seems to be setting the whole philippines on fire already. people never seem to be happy about good news and all. most usually focus on what bad things are happening around. we should try and sit down awhile and appreciate the little good things that are happening around us. instead of just digging much about what else to rally about next time. we should learn the boundaries of our acts. it's okey to protest and have our voice heard. but let's not overuse our freedom.

Protesters and activist are just fighting for their rights they don't break the law..Actually, this people are fighting for the rights of many..

I don't think it is ever necessary to break the law, I believe the power of The people in democratic countries can make such a huge difference that an orderly protest with mega proportions is much more impressive to those who haven't quite made up their minds rather than seeing people acting with violence. In a dictator situation things would be somewhat different.

Think protesters and activities doesnt break the law at all. They just want their part for the sake of all be heard by many. But you know, for nowadays, i even doubt about these people (not all). I really doubt that some of them are just being used by the one or two for the so-called self-interest. I hate those opportunist by the way who just benefit for their own the tax we are paying for the government. Well, oftentimes these (genuine) protesters plays an important role in our lives as they help us our taxes to go on the right hand.

If you break the law, but don't hurt anyone, I think that's fine. Martin Luther King, Jr did it (in America for black Americans and others), Susan B. Anthony did it (for woman's right to vote in the US), I've done it (for disability rights and to oppose to war spending). I always thought I had no other choice, although I do other forms of activism as well, and I don't regret my choices in these matters.

It's hard to say, it doesn't sound like a good thing to do for a cause but it can be only necessary with dictatorships as there's no legal way to change things and laws and rules are unjust that you just have to break it to make a change.. for other democratic societies there's always legal and acceptable ways to defend your cause..

It is not justifiable for anyone to break the law and that includes protesters and activists. Once they have broken the law, there is no containing people and in the case of protesters who are marching down the street, they are then a mob. By all means peacefully protest but do not disrupt the lives, i.e. the means of movement in the streets, of those who are not part of the protest. These are the people who the protesters need the support from and to alienate them is not helping the cause you are fighting for. There are sometimes rallies, protests, here in Australia but as a general rule if they are marching down the streets to say Parliament house, then the march will usually start about 9.00 am and be all over by about 2.00 pm, although there might still be people milling around, they are not en masse as in the protest. This means that those people who are going to work are generally at work and children are at school, by the time the march leaves the central point and the march is all over before the end of the school day. It is a long time since we have seen a violent protest march here in Australia and the damage that was done was actually to Parliament House in Canberra when they smashed the big glass doors. That was mob violence and did have the potential to become much worse than it actually ended up. However I do know that in other nations, they do have a lot of violence during these protest marches. By all means protest, but do it in an orderly manner or else the protesters should face the consequences of their actions, particularly if non-involved citizens have been injured or damage is done to private property. There is no reason for innocent people to suffer and it often hardens the attitude of those who are non-aligned. There is no excuse for breaking the law but instead use people power to get the law changed. If you cannot get the law changed, then vote those people out of power at the next election.

it is when corruption and injsutice have been prevalent in a particular country..we have all the right to express how we feel ont he govet..its what democracy is all about..but it must done in a peaceful way..in which nobody will be harm in the process..

I believe that it is justifiable for protesters and/or activists to break the law when: 1) The law is unjust- if a law hurts people or denies rights to a particular group of people or to the general population. 2) The breaking of the law happens in a non-violent manner- the act of civil disobedience should not carry the threat or actuality of physical harm to anyone. 3) The breaking of the law may be a step in bringing about change for the better of society- if civil disobedience makes a significant impression, it can be the moving force that changes unjust laws. As evidence to support my theory, I offer three names: Martin Luther King Jr.; Susan B. Anthony; Rosa Parks. All three of these people were revolutionaries who impacted civil rights in enormous ways; all of them engaged in civil disobedience and non-violent protest.