It was non-violent civilians disobedience. They weren't fighting, they were protesting. Which can be argued as legal, given the rights afforded in the US constitution.

[–] Z_Poster365@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Non-violent civilian disobedience is a euphemism for breaking the law, what do you think it is they are “disobeying”? The constitution does not protect blocking bridges, stopping public transport, etc.

They were breaking the law, and that’s the only reason they were effective. They didn't try to get elected to congress and change the laws, they took direct action themselves outside the structures of the state to force concessions using their leverage.

And as an aside, the "constitution" is a dogshit rag written by slavers and white supremacists and afforded no rights whatsoever to the enslaved chattel. Every one of those "rights afforded by the constitution" was a right explicitly forbidden by the constitution until they were forced at gunpoint to concede. The rights we have earned are in spite of the constitution, not because of it.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

It is technically breaking the law but doing so in an effective manner. You're right in that sense. At the end of the day protesting is to yell and scream to make your voice heard and sometimes, not always, you have to make disruptions to have your voice heard. It's very situational and not an easy question to answer.