A free society is a group of individuals that have the freedom to fulfill their own potential. At the core of free society in America is the first amendment right to free speech. Peaceful resistance is one way to express the right to free speech. Because of this, it can only ever have a positive impact on a free society. When the branches of government limit the right to peaceful resistance, it is a direct challenge to our freedom. The tensions created by these limits may have a negative impact on a free society, but these effects are not to be confused with the purity of the right to resist peacefully.
It is understood that government will impose regulations in times of great civil unrest, but this should never happen to peaceful protest. …show more content…
A great example of this situation is the event that revolved around Rosa Parks, as a very well known woman her acts were not seen in the brightest of lights. However to others she was seen as a powerful woman with the will to better her society. She allowed for her point to be made without having to start a dispute. Her acts were not followed with any violent behavior from her part as she knew what her consequences would be and she was clear that she would be willing to accept them. She followed a great movement of liberty in a peaceful way, which set an example of easier ways to call for change. Leading up to the 1960’s the government began to adopt the idea that there was the need to keep peace throughout the land and live without a worry, but that didn’t include all people. Most people that were embedded in this form of liberty were the majority at the time, which were …show more content…
Some examples of successful leaders to demonstrate peaceful resistance as a critical part of American Free Speech were Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Civil disobedience and non-violent action are difficult tactics for citizen-based groups to undertake. While non-violent actions like boycotts are quite legal, many other actions involve actually breaking the law. In such circumstances it is very easy to be portrayed as merely disruptive or even criminal, with no respect for the law or the peace of the community. Also, opponents often portray such actions as just not constructive. And as many activists have found, the embrace of non-violence does not guarantee a non-violent response--a risk that must be factored in by any group considering these tactics. Blockades, tree sitting, boycotts, sit-ins, not paying your taxes, and deliberately disobeying a specific law perceived to be unjust--these are some of the many ways citizens use non-violent civil disobedience to promote political change. Very often these tactics are treated as illegal, putting the individuals carrying out these actions at personal risk of arrest, fines, jail, and even civil damage
It is understood that government will impose regulations in times of great civil unrest, but this should never happen to peaceful protest. …show more content…
A great example of this situation is the event that revolved around Rosa Parks, as a very well known woman her acts were not seen in the brightest of lights. However to others she was seen as a powerful woman with the will to better her society. She allowed for her point to be made without having to start a dispute. Her acts were not followed with any violent behavior from her part as she knew what her consequences would be and she was clear that she would be willing to accept them. She followed a great movement of liberty in a peaceful way, which set an example of easier ways to call for change. Leading up to the 1960’s the government began to adopt the idea that there was the need to keep peace throughout the land and live without a worry, but that didn’t include all people. Most people that were embedded in this form of liberty were the majority at the time, which were …show more content…
Some examples of successful leaders to demonstrate peaceful resistance as a critical part of American Free Speech were Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Civil disobedience and non-violent action are difficult tactics for citizen-based groups to undertake. While non-violent actions like boycotts are quite legal, many other actions involve actually breaking the law. In such circumstances it is very easy to be portrayed as merely disruptive or even criminal, with no respect for the law or the peace of the community. Also, opponents often portray such actions as just not constructive. And as many activists have found, the embrace of non-violence does not guarantee a non-violent response--a risk that must be factored in by any group considering these tactics. Blockades, tree sitting, boycotts, sit-ins, not paying your taxes, and deliberately disobeying a specific law perceived to be unjust--these are some of the many ways citizens use non-violent civil disobedience to promote political change. Very often these tactics are treated as illegal, putting the individuals carrying out these actions at personal risk of arrest, fines, jail, and even civil damage