Headline courtesy of the Ministry of Truth

Civil disobedience, as outlined by Gandhi:

"Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice."

Basically, you believe a law is morally wrong -- we're not talking about whether or not a crosswalk should be painted at the intersection of 5th and Main but such situations as, in our own past, state-imposed segregation by "race" -- and, having concluded that silence (including inaction) is tantamount to consent, commit to nonviolence, intentionally violate the law in a nonviolent manner -- e.g., sit-in -- do not resist arrest, accept the consequences of your action, and take whatever punishment the law imposes.

Who has been harmed by such an action? Where is the damage to society?

I understand, Oohrah. Yours is a logical point. But. ultimatley, I don't think the "state attorney general" analogy stand up because Gore is no longer an official of the US government. We'll probably continue to disagree, which is fine. In fact, I can't think of anyone here on the DR with whom I'd more like to disagree. (And that's meant in a positive sense, because you tend strongly towards what I perceive as intelligent posting.)

I hear you, Oohrah.