Fortas in 1968,
Abe Fortas. [Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States]. Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience. 1968. New York: Signet Books. p. 63.
In my judgment civil disobedience — the deliberate violation of law — is never justified in our nation where the law being violated is not itself the focus or target of the protest. So long as our governments obey the mandate of the Constitution and assure facilities and protection for the powerful expression of individual and mass dissent, the disobedience of laws which are not themselves the target of the protest — the violation of law merely as a technique of demonstration — constitutes an act of rebellion, not merely dissent.
Civil disobedience is violation of law. Any violation of law must be punished, whatever its purpose, as the theory of civil disobedience recognizes. But law violation directed not to the laws or practices that are the subject of dissent, but to unrelated laws which are disobeyed merely to dramatize dissent, may be morally as well as politically unacceptable.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
BOB the Sponge with Square Pants 01.21.08 at 2:46 pm
couldn’t you just argue this with Fortas was a white man in the time of black predjudice so wouldn’t make sense if he was predudice too…he could just be saying this to make the african americans look worse? or did that even make sense?
Riah 02.12.08 at 12:09 pm
Civil disobedience is always appropriate.
The reason?
Civil disobedience causes the majority to re-evaluate the definition of justice.
If someone commits a crime, they are punished that is how our society works.
By punishing them, we are upholding the previous version of justice and thus strengthening our society.
By punishing them, and then changing our mind about the best definition of justice we are thus evolving into a more just society and taking a step towards creating a more in sync majority V.S. Minority conflict.
Civil disobedience does not have to be “Right” to be justified or appropriate.
Ciao RIAH