The United States of America is a country run by a democratic government, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens in its discourse community. When social issues arise, citizens have the right to protest and share their opinions on the issue, through freedom of speech. However, those who protest must not infringe on the rights of others, otherwise they would be breaking the law. There are many different methods of protest that have been used throughout history, including non-violent acts such as petitions, stickers, chants, boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, marches and memes. Other forms of protest include violent acts such as bombings, acts of terrorism, killings and destruction of property. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayBoth forms of protest, violent and nonviolent, are used to change laws and social norms. However, the most commonly used method of protest is civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a form of non-violent protest used to change or raise awareness of an unjust law or the need for a new law. Those who follow this form of protest often break laws or infringe on the rights of others when supporting their cause. This is a common problem among discourse communities and begs the question: "Is civil disobedience an acceptable method of protest in a democracy?" Many authoritative sources such as Plato, Martin Luther King, and Van Dusen have differing opinions on this issue, as does the general population of Americans. Civil disobedience has been seen throughout history in protests such as the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, women's right to vote. LGBT rights movement and movement. However, one of the first examples of civil disobedience occurred when the philosopher Socrates was imprisoned due to his controversial teachings on the youth of Athens. Socrates decided to stay in his prison cell, even though many arguments were made against this by his friend Crito. Socrates made many arguments to support his decision against civil disobedience, such as the ideas of social contract, utilitarianism, and self-interest. . He stated that obeying the government would be for the greater good, because disobeying the government would destroy its authority and this would cause greater problems for the Athenian citizens. Obedience to government is necessary for its function and laws to be valid. If the rules were to be ignored, then the functions of government would be useless and their consequences would not be respected. Socrates explained that it is never acceptable to break any law passed by the government, because it would harm everyone involved, directly and indirectly. As a citizen of Athens, he was educated, fed and protected; so he must follow all government rules and regulations. In Plato's “Crito,” Socrates explains that “Whoever does not love us and the city, and who wants to emigrate to a colony or to any other city, can go wherever he likes. loves, retaining its property. But he who has experience in how we order justice and administer the state, and who still remains, has entered into an implicit contract that he will do what we order him” (254). If Socrates did not respect thestate laws, Athenian government, he had the option of moving elsewhere. However, he remained as a citizen of Athens and had to respect the laws and accept the consequences of breaking them. Socrates, as a law-abiding citizen of Athens, decided to agree. the consequence of his crimes, the death penalty, if he had escaped from prison, he would have set a bad example to his students and would have been ridiculed by his fellow Athenians, because he would have become a fugitive from the government. who protected him during his life, civil disobedience was not chosen in this situation, because Socrates respected the consequences of his crimes and accepted responsibility for what he had done. Martin Luther King Jr. was an active promoter of civil disobedience during his protests for racial equality in America. He argued that civil disobedience was necessary to prevent violence, while calling for the changing of oppressive laws in society. He explained that breaking unjust laws is an acceptable action if done respectfully and the penalty for disobedience is paid without conflict. King used civil disobedience to draw attention to unjust segregation laws, as well as to convince his fellow clergymen of how they oppressed much of the population. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King told the clergyman that it was time to change segregation. the laws were now and not later when it seemed appropriate. They believed that change would happen over time and that it was not a good idea to push for change before its time. King believed the time for change had come and realized that many official steps needed to be taken before civil disobedience became a logical option. King said: “In any nonviolent campaign, there are four basic steps: gathering the facts to determine whether the injustices are real, negotiation, self-purification, direct action. We went through all these stages in Birmingham” (280). King explored whether racial inequality was high in Birmingham and attempted to bring about change through conversations with authorities and taking legal action. King tried to negotiate with the merchants to remove their humiliating signs from the stores, but the merchants refused to make the change. However, none of these options worked, so King decided that civil disobedience was the logical next step to bring change to America's oppressive racial laws. Lewis Van Dusen Jr. had a distinguished career in law, military service and writing. He explained both sides of disobedience, on the side of the law and on the side of the protesters. Protesters see it as a peaceful demonstration, while lawmakers see it as a deliberate form of disobedience to the government. Van Dusen explains that civil disobedience is carried out with good intentions, but it degrades the democratic system of government. When protesters attempt to take justice into their own hands, their illegal actions infringe on the rights of others and disrupt the natural democratic process. The techniques used by protesters send the message that the American justice system is not working and that the government has failed at democracy. In “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy,” Van Dusen explains that civil disobedience is morally and politically irresponsible because they do not interact properly as a functioning member of democracy. He explains that the demonstrators use their techniques not..