A very famous example of legal change resulting from deliberate breaking of unjust laws involved various legal cases and acts of parliament which responded to the civil rights movement in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. This was a concerted campaign involving many people, and many instances of civil disobedience. BEFORE CLASS, please read these 3 items: 1. Look at this wikipedia extract for background to the particular legislative changes that were made in 1964 (I've left links in for you to explore more context if you wish) 2. Read this article which appeared in the New York Times in January 1964 (forgiving typos and gendered language if you can). Please note that access is free until you reach a limit, so if you get shut out you can read a PDF of the original which is attached to this top of this entry. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/12/archives/is-it-right-to-break-the-law-the-question-is-raised-by-recent.html?smid=url-share 3. Finally, read this opinion piece about Australian protests against lockdown and vaccinations https://theconversation.com/public-protest-or-selfish-ratbaggery-why-free-speech-doesnt-give-you-the-right-to-endanger-other-peoples-health-165079 In our final tutorial, we will explore the similarities and differences between the law-breaking events of the US Civil Rights movement and the more recent Australian protests. In particular, be prepared to answer the following questions: 1. Can we ever say that some acts of civil disobedience are not justified, provided that the views of those who commit such acts are genuinely held? 2. What types of injustices might permit, or even require, resistance by way of illegal action? 3. If we consider that law breaking can sometimes be a legitimate response to laws made by the state, what does this mean for sovereignty and the rule of law