Protests: Is law-breaking never called for?

Re: “Democrats practice intimidation” (letter, 4-26).

In a perfect world, I would agree that the writer has a valid point: No one has a right to break the law, and all demonstrations should be peaceful. No disagreement there. But it’s not a perfect world.

Believe it or not, many folks out there suspect otherwise, and that the only change possible is through rowdy, raucous, even violent behavior. They think the only way they can affect the system is to resort to time-honored means, a la protest marches in Selma, Alabama; bloody labor fights in Ludlow, Colorado; the Watts riots in 1965; and, yes, our own American Revolution, the granddaddy of them all.

As for the protests I think the writer refers to, in front of Trump Tower, the man himself is perceived as neo-fascist, a hatemonger, a racist and a condoner of violence committed on his behalf (shades of Mussolini?).

A lot of smart, intelligent people, not hidebound by ideology and predisposition, regard him as a blatant demagogue and a threat to democracy.

Strictly speaking, none of this justifies lawlessness. But isn’t a shout, meant to raise an alarm, better than a whisper?

Now if I could just get the corporate media on board!

This story was originally published April 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM with the headline "Protests: Is law-breaking never called for?."