Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Although civil disobedience is rarely justifiable in court, [3] King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 13 January 2025. 1849 essay by Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience First page of "Resistance to Civil Government" as published in Aesthetic Papers, in 1849. Author Henry David Thoreau Language English Publication place United States Media type Print Text Civil Disobedience at Wikisource This article ...
Berel Lang argues against the conflation of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience on the grounds that the necessary conditions for an act instancing civil disobedience are: (1) that the act violates the law, (2) that the act is performed intentionally, and (3) that the actor anticipates and willingly accepts punitive measures made on the ...
Civil discourse and civil disobedience are just that, "civil". Though one aims to bring change by communication while the other aims to bring change by disobedience. On the note that civil disobedience is a tool to expose unjust laws, late Congress Representative John Lewis lived by this mantra. Lewis said it was important to engage in "good ...
OpEd: What is wicked if not the stampede over the corpses of children to defend the weapons that killed them?
Civil disobedience has served as a major tactic of nationalist movements in former colonies in Africa and Asia prior to their gaining independence. Most notably Mahatma Gandhi developed civil disobedience as an anti-colonialist tool. Gandhi stated "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought ...
“Civil disobedience is saying, look, the ordinary democratic channels are blocked up. We can't get a hearing for this great injustice. So we're going to break the law,” he said.
Because this Court holds that the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally rejected any reporter’s privilege rooted in the First Amendment or common law in the context of a grand jury acting in good faith, this Court denies the motions to quash. Civil cases, as opposed to criminal cases, have been held not to come under the Branzburg test. [7]