Read the Letters from Birmingham Jail to gain some insight on the obligation to protest unjust laws.
This whole argument is ludicrous. In the US, it would be unconstitutional for the president to censor protest. So if your argument is that laws are morality, how do you square the conflict between these two nation's laws?
Re: Edit
>And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
My point was explicitly that the laws of a society catch up but they are inherently almost always behind the morality of that society. What you're describing is not only this delay but also the fact that you're talking about 2 different societies. And when the system above doesn't work it's not a democracy.
> And wouldn't laws in a democracy
> Not if dissent has been crushed.
If a democracy crushes dissent it's either not a democracy or the views of the majority demand that dissent be crushed. Again, the point was that if society overall changes it's views on morality of things, laws tend to eventually follow. Either by force (overthrowing the oppressive regime) or by vote. Take the examples of race and sexuality to see how laws were changes as the views of society changed.
Indeed. Doesn't this perfectly confirm my theory that morality can/does exist outside of the law, and that the law is usually behind, getting "synchronized" once in a while according to the morals of society?
This whole argument is ludicrous. In the US, it would be unconstitutional for the president to censor protest. So if your argument is that laws are morality, how do you square the conflict between these two nation's laws?
Re: Edit >And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
Not if dissent has been crushed.