The Cause Of Civil Disobedience In The United States

A government’s purpose is to regulate a nation. Regardless of the disagreements some may have about the United States government, the fact that humans need a governing body in order to avoid chaos is irrefutable. Still, there are times when members of a society do not agree with the views of their governing body. At times like those, society has been known to occasionally resort to civil disobedience. The act of peacefully opposing what one deems as an unjust law seems to be controversial among society members. Some argue that it is wrong to oppose a law because that would negatively impact society, perhaps by creating distrust between a nation’s government and its society. Others argue that it is the right of Americans to voice their opinions,
Former C.I.A. employee Snowden leaked classified information about the National Security Agency’s programs. In other words, Snowden broke the law, and in doing so, he opened the eyes of the public to what some would perceive as an invasion of privacy. Those same people who perceived Snowden’s act of civil disobedience as an act of heroism would argue that this invasion of privacy is unjust according to the U.S. Constitution. In the event of Snowden’s civil disobedience, Snowden created distrust between Americans and the U.S. government by insinuating that the American government was unjustly infringing upon the rights of its citizens, and suggesting that there should be no circumstances in which this is legal or accepted by the American people. The reality is, however, that without organizations such as the N.S.A. there to monitor Americans from afar, the American nation would be open to millions of threats. In fact, those who view Snowden as a hero would likely view things differently if for example the safety of their nation was compromised by a secret terrorist organization within the United States which, without the efforts of the N.S.A.’s programs, had gone undetected. If this was the case, they would likely be arguing in favor of creating these programs rather than demolishing them. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that in the case of Edward Snowden’s act of civil disobedience, society was negatively impacted by
While Parks’ decision to disobey the Jim Crow laws of segregation was an act of civil disobedience, one might argue that it positively impacted society. In this instance, Parks stood against an unjust law that was creating division, quite literally, within society. Ultimately her efforts were influential within the Civil Rights Movement which led to the end of segregation. Thus, her act of civil disobedience was positively influential in the improvement of relations between members of American society. While Snowden created division, Parks sought to end it. These two separate acts of civil disobedience were both peaceful acts of opposition towards the American government, yet what distinguishes one from the other are the circumstances surrounding both. When comparing the Civil Rights Movement with the Black Lives Matter movement of today, for instance, it is clear that the motives are similar: to advocate for racial equality. However, the difference is in the circumstances surrounding both movements. The Civil Rights Movement aimed to stand against an unjust law, while the Black Lives Matter movement aims to fight against racial profiling leading to the police shootings of blacks in America. At this point in time the effects that the Black Lives Matter movement will have on the U.S. is unclear, but it is evident that although some may argue that the BLM movement exemplifies