Where is the line drawn between civil disobedience and law breaking? In the discussion, there was a general consensus that as long as the cause was "just" it was fine to break the law, but who decides whether the issue is just? What is considered right to one person, may not be the same to another, so the issue is not as black and white as people would like to think. Simplified, I believe if there is an infringement upon a person or group's basic civil rights, then it is just to disobey the law, but only to an extent. The line is drawn when a person is hurt, or it causes a disaster that affects the population haphazardly. As Frederick Douglass said, "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any
