On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the persons who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organized forcible resistance, on the other hand.
“No law is ever perfect, and no system that brought the burden of said passage of law to whom it was directed, are always what that governing body foresaw when it strove to protect same. Unintended consequences remain a living cancer that dines at the same table as those who would protect us from harm.”
I am not advocating civil disobedience in this case, only placing it on the table.