[qntty]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

> I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today.

[AngryData]

I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh and the best you can hope for is the state merely extorting thousands of dollars out of you and a life-long black mark for employment. Ive had jobs grinding raw castings in 100+ degree environments that full time that paid less than $30K which required background checks.

Unless you got $10K+ to drop on a private lawyer before hand, going to court in the US is a HUGE risk that in most cases is going to cost you many thousands of dollars in court fees and fines regardless with the risk of more jail time and more fees if you can't pay it off on their schedule.

[baubino]

> I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh

Civil rights activists, including King, lost their lives for daring to challenge injustice. The penalties are no more severe today than they were then.

[roxolotl]

It’s pretty classic civil disobedience. In my mind it’s really the founding principle of the states. There is a difference between what is legal and what is just. For the past 250 years what is just has continually evolved and expanded.

> Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

- Civil Disobedience

[ncr100]

And the "unjust" principle works in the opposite direction, nowadays, for ICE / certain US Federal employees.

Justice is supposedly enabled / supported by the law against second-degree murder. And it's is unlikely to be applied to the ICE officer who shot Renee Good unnecessarily:

- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/rene...

[estearum]

ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech.

A spokesperson for DHS just last week openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.

[pjc50]

The ultimate expression of this is the Presidential pardon, a pass entitling privileged people to one or more free crimes.

[dayvid]

People have too much to lose nowadays. Having a jail or protesting history gives you a black mark if you're middle class and you have to pursue alternate avenues to provide for yourself and your family. It's a last resort and has allowed a lot of insidious things to grow in US gov't and outside

[shipman05]

The men and women who protested with MLK Jr. risked physical harm and death. Many of them paid the ultimate price. So it's hard to argue they didn't have much to lose.

I do take your point, though. Civil disobedience and a digital trail of "undesirable" behavior isn't compatible with a high-earning life in the corporate world.

[pkkim]

Hmmm. When I was in college, I protested and went to jail multiple times in the US, though I was never convicted (the organization I was with provided for legal representation). I don't believe it has ever damaged my career. I'm curious if your experience has been different?

[pear01]

People have too much to lose nowadays?

Many of King's contemporaries died for this. He was shot and killed. The FBI tried to blackmail him and get him to commit suicide.

I would rather people just admit they are cowards. It is fine, most people are. But saying people have too much to lose nowadays as if this is a contemporary phenomenon is just disingenuous. People always have much to lose, arguably "nowadays" less than ever before.

Maybe the real change is in how things are valued or what society sees as virtues. Perhaps our modern society values wealth more than personal integrity for example. I would suggest though a lot of this is just cope for the fact that people are learning they aren't fit for their heros, they don't belong in the same room let alone the same building. It's easy to valorize King when he's a voice from the past. The people who stay home today are the same who stayed home then. The American revolution was really instigated by a minority of the colonial population. Most people stay home.

It's just a basic fact of humanity - most people are cowards, and that is probably fine. If they weren't society would likely never exist in the first place. What does a polity even look like in a land where everyone is a hero?

[JKCalhoun]

Really?

Well, when they have nothing left to lose, watch out, I guess.

[zer00eyz]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.

There is another side to this coin: jury nullification.

The fact that, most Americans, are unaware of the concept, or that it is a choice they can make is one of the tragedies of the modern era. Adams had much to say on the topic, and his take is still valid 200 years later.

[massysett]

I think that when you put most Americans in a jury box, they will learn that whether they vote to convict is their choice. Ask the guy who threw the sandwich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn

[Capricorn2481]

> I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today

The landscape has completely changed. No authority in charge entertains the idea that the law should be respected, it's not surprising citizens reciprocate.

[watwut]

> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

I would not say this one, because I simply strongly disagree. Simple as that. No, nazi opposition did not needes to let yourself be tortured in camp to be valid. Nor communist one.

As a demand, it is absurd on its face. Yeah, you should weight the level of risk and loss. And you dont need to aim for self harm when opposing something bad.

[verisimi]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.

When is it just in its application?

[dijit]

More often than not, I would argue.

There's a reason that due process is a thing, it's more commonly upheld than it's not, no matter what rhetoric you've been spun by a fear-mongering media.

[propagandist]

https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A

Kwame Ture talks about what it takes for nonviolence to work.