When Lawbreaking Is Justified: Media's Ethical Dilemma

Breaking the law is a highly contentious issue, with some arguing that it is never justifiable, while others claim that there are certain circumstances in which it can be justified. For instance, when a law is considered unjust or immoral, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, some may argue that disobedience is warranted. This controversial topic has sparked debates worldwide, with varying perspectives on the duty to obey the law and the threshold for justifying lawbreaking. The media plays a pivotal role in amplifying these discussions, often igniting public discourse and influencing societal perceptions of civil disobedience, vigilantism, and the limits of acceptable protest.

Civil disobedience and peaceful protest

Civil disobedience is often associated with peaceful protests, as both involve a non-violent approach to challenging authority. Peaceful protests are a way for ordinary people to have their voices heard, address inherent power imbalances, and pursue positive change. History has shown that peaceful protests can have a powerful and lasting impact, such as the Indian Independence movement led by Gandhi, which inspired the American civil rights movement. Other examples include the Montgomery Bus Boycott, where Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger, and the Salt Marches.

Climate activists, for instance, have resorted to acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to their cause. In Germany, environmentalists blocked coal infrastructures to protect century-old trees in the Hambach Forest, leading to short prison sentences for some activists. Similarly, in Sudan, civil disobedience campaigns involved blocking key infrastructure, shutting down public transportation, medical centers, schools, and banks, and disrupting electricity and fuel supplies to protest rising living costs and increased poverty.

While civil disobedience and peaceful protests can be powerful tools for change, they may not always be effective. For example, Nelson Mandela initially participated in non-violent protests against apartheid in South Africa, but when these protests failed to achieve their goals, he co-founded the paramilitary wing of the African National Congress (ANC) and led a sabotage campaign against the government, for which he was imprisoned for 27 years.

In conclusion, civil disobedience and peaceful protests are justifiable when faced with unjust or immoral laws, as they provide a means for ordinary people to challenge authority, address power imbalances, and pursue positive change. However, the effectiveness of these methods may vary, and in some cases, more radical approaches may be deemed necessary, as demonstrated by Mandela's shift from peaceful protests to violent civil disobedience.

Unjust laws and human rights

Breaking the law is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been widely discussed and debated. While some argue that there is a duty to obey the law as a citizen, others contend that there may be exceptional circumstances where breaking the law can be justified, particularly when laws are unjust or violate human rights.

The notion of a "duty to obey" the law is a fundamental aspect of any peaceful and democratic society. Adherence to the rule of law is crucial for maintaining order and preventing chaos. Laws are established to guide our behaviour and ensure that everyone operates within certain boundaries. Without laws, there would be no consequences for wrongdoing, and individuals could act with impunity, leading to a breakdown of social cohesion.

However, it is essential to recognise that not all laws are inherently just or moral. Some laws may be discriminatory, oppressive, or violate fundamental human rights. In such cases, individuals may find themselves confronted with a moral dilemma, feeling compelled to take a stand against these unjust laws, even if it means breaking them. For instance, during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, many individuals participated in acts of civil disobedience, such as the famous bus boycott in Montgomery, to challenge the unjust and discriminatory laws of racial segregation.

The justification for breaking unjust laws stems from the belief that individuals should be able to differentiate between right and wrong and act according to their conscience, even if it means facing legal repercussions. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." This sentiment underscores the idea that sometimes, breaking an unjust law can be a courageous act of standing up for what is right, even if it goes against the established legal framework.

In conclusion, while it is generally accepted that laws are necessary to maintain order in society, there are exceptional circumstances where breaking the law can be justified. Unjust laws that violate human rights or infringe upon our conscience can prompt individuals to take a stand and challenge the status quo, even if it means facing legal consequences. As such, the debate surrounding the justification for breaking the law is a nuanced one that requires careful consideration of the specific context, the nature of the law in question, and the underlying principles of justice and morality.

Vigilantism and terrorism

Vigilantism is the act of preventing, investigating, and punishing perceived offences and crimes without legal authority. Vigilantes undertake public safety and retributive justice without commission. Vigilante violence is intended to maintain and defend the established sociopolitical order rather than change it. It is often a reaction to the widening range of officially tolerated innovation and the existence of state-sponsored innovation.

There are four major types of vigilantism: private spontaneous vigilantism, private organized vigilantism, official spontaneous vigilantism, and official organized vigilantism. Official vigilantism is sponsored by the state, whereas private vigilantism is not. An example of private vigilantism is the Bakassi Boys of Nigeria, who were viewed as instrumental in reducing the region's high crime rates. An example of official vigilantism is the Village Scouts of Thailand, who were involved in the Thammasat University massacre of 1976.

Vigilantism has a long history, with conceptual parallels to the medieval aristocratic custom of private war or vendetta. During medieval times, secret societies such as the courts of the Vehm in Westphalian Germany punished felons. In the early 20th century, the White Finns founded the Suojeluskunta (Protection Corps) as a paramilitary vigilante organization in Finland. After World War II, many alleged Nazi collaborators were beaten or killed by vigilantes.

Vigilantism can be linked to terrorism. For example, the People Against Gangsterism and Drugs of Cape Town, South Africa, has been linked to terrorism since they bombed some American targets. Jonathan Idema, a self-proclaimed vigilante who entered Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, captured many people he claimed were terrorists. He sold tapes to news media outlets that he claimed showed an Al Qaeda training camp.

Social and cultural norms

One perspective argues that laws are established to maintain order and ensure consequences for wrongdoings. Without laws, it is believed that society would descend into chaos, as depicted in literary works such as "Lord of the Flies," where the absence of rules leads to destructive outcomes. Laws act as a deterrent, preventing individuals from acting on their impulses and considering the potential repercussions of their actions. This view holds that breaking the law is unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances, as it threatens the very fabric of social stability.

Conversely, there is a growing recognition that certain laws can be iniquitous and violate human rights. In such cases, breaking the law may be morally justifiable. For instance, consider the history of civil rights movements or the fight against oppressive regimes. Individuals and groups have often resorted to unlawful acts, such as civil disobedience, strikes, or peaceful protests, to challenge unjust social and cultural norms. They recognise that change often requires sacrificing personal freedom and facing potential punishment, but they believe that the greater good justifies their actions.

The justification for breaking the law lies in the specific situation and purpose rather than the rules and regulations themselves. For example, inter-caste marriages or polygamy might go against socio-cultural norms, but adhering to these norms could create barriers for those seeking to live freely. Similarly, in the context of the Fugitive Slave Act, some may argue that openly violating the law is justified if one believes it to be immoral and a violation of human rights.

While not all law-breaking can be condoned, it is essential to acknowledge that certain social and cultural norms may require reform. This reform may involve challenging existing laws and engaging in acts of civil disobedience. As Dr. King famously said, "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever; the urge for freedom will eventually come." Thus, while respecting the rule of law is essential, it is equally crucial to recognise that laws are not infallible, and sometimes breaking them can be a catalyst for positive social and cultural change.

Political community and citizenship

The question of whether breaking the law can ever be justified is a complex and controversial topic, with no clear-cut answer. While some argue that there is a duty to obey the law built into citizenship, others assert that this duty is contingent on the fairness and justice of the law itself. This debate is particularly relevant in political communities, where the actions of citizens can have significant implications for the collective.

In a political community, the concept of citizenship is integral to the functioning of the society. Citizens are expected to uphold certain rights and responsibilities, which may include a duty to obey the law. However, the notion that citizenship entails unconditional obedience to the law has been widely contested. As seen in the example of Nazi Germany, blindly following laws without regard for their morality can lead to devastating consequences. Hence, it is argued that the duty to obey the law should be contingent on the law being just and fair.

In a democratic society, the rule of law is often considered a fundamental pillar. Adherence to the law is seen as crucial for maintaining peace and order. Politicians and leaders often emphasize the importance of changing bad laws through established processes rather than breaking them. However, this assumes that all citizens have an equal ability to influence law-making processes, which may not always be the case.

The idea of "unjust" laws and the moral justification for breaking them has been a subject of debate. Some argue that in certain circumstances, unlawful acts such as strikes, whistle-blowing, or civil disobedience may be justified if they are done in the name of justice or fighting for a greater good. For instance, consider a person stealing medicine they cannot afford to save their dying wife. While stealing is against the law, the context and purpose of the action may lead to a reduced punishment.

In conclusion, while there may be a general expectation of obedience to the law within a political community, the duty of citizens to obey is not absolute. The fairness and justice of the law play a significant role in determining whether breaking the law can be justified. Citizens have a responsibility to differentiate between right and wrong and make decisions that align with their conscience, even if it means violating certain laws. However, it is important to note that breaking the law can have consequences, and other forms of protest or disobedience may be preferred over more extreme actions like vigilantism or terrorism.

Frequently asked questions