People often misunderstand how the right to protest free speech, and democracy works, often thinking in an entitled mentality “free speech is important for me” , the need to protest has increasing over past few years, many people are discontent with the globalization and the government. Protesting is a right, but when used for free speech, it is not always the answer.(state posision)
The right to protest is one of basic human rights; however, the right to protest does not allow anyone to destroy the property. The injustices being done by groups does not merit the need more violence. As Martin King said “So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong,
…show more content…
The destruction of property as a necessary element in the struggle for social, political, and economic justice is unacceptable and works to further discredit the protestors and cause. The destruction of property to bring attention to a cause does not excuse the actions of the protestors. Although there may be injustice being done by an institution it does not allow groups to act illegally. The injustices being done by a group or institution does not merit the need for further violence and harm. Advancements are made through negotiations and other forms of protest rather than the destruction of property. The right to protest is one that is a basic human right ;however, the right to protest does not allow for the destruction of property. As Martin Luther King Jr. states in Letters from Birmingham City Jail,
I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (King 197). Arguments because destruction of property brings awareness to the protest s cause are not defensible and merely trite excuses for illegal behavior. The need for destruction only brings forth flaws in the movements. Noreena Hertz states, Like many others who have come to think of themselves as part of this movement because we share its