Lawmakers and the public label any non-accepted protest as violent

Evidence

Why should he speak of violence in general terms, when non-violent forms of civil disobedience were also implied in the termforms of passive resistance, occupying squares or buildings, and other non-injurious actions? It may have been common among lawyers, politicians and wide sections of the public to describe these actions as violent, in so far as they did not accept the goals they were being used to pursue. But in a philosopher of the opposition in the highly industrialized societies of the West, was it not bound to give rise to misunderstandings? — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2596

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing the history of how civil disobedience came to be legally and rhetorically classified as violence.
• XREF: connects to: Covert framing, not policy substance, determined public protests — Saher Selod, Forever Suspect_ Racialized…, 480; Terrorism labeling expands opportunistically to discredit domestic protest movements; Liberal tolerance paradoxically justifies violence against the allegedly intolerant — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race…, 695 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Terrorism labeling expands opportunistically to discredit domestic protest movements #corroborates (0.92)
• Covert framing, not policy substance, determined public protests #corroborates (0.88) — Saher Selod, Forever Suspect_ Racialized…, 480
• Violence with impunity is practiced in the name of civility #corroborates (0.85)
• Liberal tolerance paradoxically justifies violence against the allegedly intolerant #complicates (0.78) — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media, 695