Problem of Civil Disobedience Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

Oregon Supreme Court lately endorsed a disciplinary damage verdict for trespass stemming from an ecological remonstration. Even though the law at present authorizes disciplinary indemnity for trespass, this Memorandum makes a case that an instruction that permits the adjudicators to reflect on reasons and viewpoints in measuring disciplinary damages for civil disobedience breaches both the United States, as well as, Oregon Constitutions. This memorandum further makes a case that, as an issue of guiding principle, courts ought not to permit disciplinary damages in cases of civil disobedience (1).

The freedoms assured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are very important to our social order and of supreme significance. Courts often defend freedom of expression over other goods, as well as, the right to disagree and object is central in the First Amendment's assurances.

On the other hand, the right to remonstration is not unconditional. When "mixed behavior" violates upon other significant individual rights or state benefits, the government can limit the ways used to communicate thoughts, even though it cannot limit thoughts themselves. Consequently, demonstrators who trespass on personal or restricted property are legally responsible for the behavior that comprises trespass albeit the protestors joint the trespass with expression (2).

Nevertheless, those committed to an out-of-favor or out-of-the-way message can use trespass or other negligible violations of the law to attract awareness to their message. Quite a few famous movements have productively used this kind of activity, which is better recognized as "civil disobedience." Campaigners employ civil disobedience in the ecological context as well. Even though civil disobedience is not a protected means of expression under the First Amendment or the Oregon Constitution, it is innately expressive behavior (3).

The Oregon Supreme Court lately upheld a disciplinary damage verdict for trespass in opposition to a group of ecological protesters occupied in civil disobedience. This legal action, Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade (Huffman & Wright), exemplifies some of the troubles of presenting disciplinary damages in this background, predominantly in terms of jury directives. This memorandum examines Huffman & Wright under the First Amendment, as well as, the Oregon Constitution. It makes a case that even though criminal restrictions and compensatory civil damages are suitable when protesters engage in nonviolent civil disobedience or infringe trespass or parallel laws, the law has got to be sensitive to the possible impact of disciplinary damages on sheltered expression. A court has to tutor the jury that it may well not reflect on the substance of defendant's expression or the reasons and viewpoints behind it in measuring disciplinary damages. Lastly, for the reason that of the history of civil disobedience in United States politics, as well as, the complexity of separating conduct from protected expression in this context, this memorandum questions the correctness of awarding disciplinary damages at all in civil disobedience cases (1).

This memo concludes that under the assurances of both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as, the Oregon Constitution courts have got to utilize a sensitive jury instruction on disciplinary damages when expression and illegal conduct are tangled.

Summary of the Case

In 1987, members of the ecological group "Earth First!" staged a widely shown protest to raise objection on the policies of the U.S. Forest Service. They protested on Forest Service assets in a national forest where Huffman and Wright were occupied in logging actions. The protestors chained themselves to Huffman and Wright's logging gear and in tandem made declarations, chanted jingles, and catchphrases. One demonstrator mounted on a piece of gear and suspended a huge banner. The remonstration sourced a fractional shutdown of Huffman and Wright's logging processes for most of the day. The activists were detained and charged with, and consequently found guilty of, criminal misbehavior in the third degree. The logging corporation filed a civil suit for trespass to property and wanted compensatory and disciplinary damages for the shutdown.

The defendants did not dispute the criminal guilty verdict, and they accepted legal responsibility for compensatory damages in the civil suit. On the other hand, they made a case that awarding disciplinary damages would infringe their right to free expression as assured by the Oregon Constitution, as well as, the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants made a case that all of their behaviors were expressive, and citing Wheeler v. Green, claimed that the Oregon Constitution restricts recovery for torts reasoned by "misuse of speech" to compensatory damages, as well as, prevent any verdict of disciplinary damages. For the reason that the defendants considered all of their behavior as expressive and consequently protected from disciplinary damages, they did not demand a jury instruction to bound the evaluation of disciplinary damages to the non-expressive feature of the conduct. The jury instruction actually given was founded on Oregon Uniform Civil Jury Instruction (UCJI) 35.01. The court ordered the adjudicators that they could verdict disciplinary damages if defendants' behavior was motiveless and reasoned damage to petitioner, consecutively not only to penalize defendants but also to discourage parallel behavior by them and others in the future. The jury was informed that a verdict of disciplinary damages was optional and that it could reflect on "the significance to society in shaping similar bad behavior in the future." In shaping the quantity of disciplinary damages, the jury could reflect on the subsequent: the nature of defendants' behavior, the defendants' reasons, the sum essential to dishearten defendants and others from engaging in comparable behavior in the future, and defendants' monetary resources. The adjudicators awarded $25,000 in disciplinary damages opposed to each defendant.

The Oregon Court of Appeals supported the tribunal court's verdict and the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged. The Oregon Supreme Court, similar to the Court of Appeals, documented that there was no defense for the trespassory acts. The court made a note that the tort of trespass "cannot willingly be dedicated by speech, even if speech attributes the trespass." On evaluation, the disciplinary damages could remain if assisted by any of defendants' behaviors. For the reason that the activists did not ask for a jury instruction separating the protected expressive behavior from non-expressive behavior, the court felt that it was unacceptable to review the decision for actual reflection of inappropriate factors by the jury. The bulk did not address the jury instruction on disciplinary damages for the non-protected behavior that specifically allowed the jury to reflect on protected behavior (1).

Questions Presented

Since the First Amendment does not prevent application of an illegal trespass ruling or other suitable regulation in opposition to persons engaged in expressive doings, a question can be raised in respect of whether or why disciplinary damages may be forced in civil actions for the same conduct (1)?

Short Answer

Disciplinary damages are similar to the obligation of criminal responsibility, since, where disciplinary damages beyond any genuine injury are permissible; the applicant collects them as a shape of public sentence. Disciplinary damages are also considered to discourage people from infringing the rights of others. When activity associates the First Amendment, disciplinary damages are permitted if the government can constitutionally control the activity. There is a distinguished exemption in some cases concerning "genuine speech," however; disciplinary damages exist for behavior that can be regulated, for example trespass. In addition, the Supreme Court lately avowed that behavior involving expressive rudiments could be subject to superior penalties in the criminal background in cases where the defendant's viewpoints or inspirations cause extraordinary and distinctive harms apart from the message expressed.


Jurors are given much caution in awarding disciplinary damages for bad behavior. This carefulness is worrying in the civil disobedience context for the reason that of the danger that jurors may reflect on protected expression in moving towards the verdict (4).

In civil disobedience cases, the law has got to distinguish the significance of free expression and resolve it with the requirement to chastise and give a cure for bad behavior. Disciplinary damages can threaten protected expression which is tangled with bad behavior, as well as, jury instructions have got to be cautiously limited if the compensations are to be permitted at all (4).

In agreement with First Amendment of freedom of expression, an instruction cannot authorize the adjudicators to reflect on and assess a defendant's viewpoints, reasons, or estimations in awarding disciplinary damages. The "transcendent value of speech" Orders that, in view of disciplinary damages, a panel of judges can be permitted to reflect on only the otherwise illegal conduct, and not the reasons or viewpoints behind it. Even though this custom is more defensive than the disciplinary damages custom when an activity does not associate expression, it is compatible with the obligation of exact regulations for mixed behavior (3).

At a minimum, the free expression stipulation of article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution obligate the same restriction on the issues a jury may reflect on in awarding disciplinary damages in this area (3). On the other hand, such a disciplinary damage instruction assumes that courts and…

Cite This Term Paper:

"Problem Of Civil Disobedience" (2004, March 05) Retrieved August 20, 2017, from

"Problem Of Civil Disobedience" 05 March 2004. Web.20 August. 2017. <>

"Problem Of Civil Disobedience", 05 March 2004, Accessed.20 August. 2017,