Does peaceful protest work or is it the violent responses to peaceful protests that are the actual catalyst for change?

It is actually the disgust with the violent reaction to peaceful protest that causes change.

When Bull Connor used attack dogs and firehoses on peaceful marchers, it was the reaction to the violence shown on television that had people finally say, “enough”.

I don’t think either works. But, if it makes those who do it feel good, then I guess they should do it. I think a lot of the violent protests are egged on by anarchists.

Non violent protest is a sign of a healthy, functional democracy. When things get to a point where either side feels violence is the only recourse, that is the sign of a unhealthy, dysfunctional democracy.

What @zenvelo said + at least some coverage from the corporate media. I’ve been involved in protests up to 750,000k people. It was mostly peaceful, and nobody I knew over the age of 25 even knew it happened. And during the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the unprecedented global protests, including tens of thousands of us in the streets of Boston, received very little coverage other than a scene of an anarchist throwing something. I had friends in Seattle that took part in the 1999 WTO protests, and they called me fearing for their lives. “The police are just grabbing people, smashing their heads open, and arresting them.” The corporate media coverage I got back east was of a couple of anarchists breaking the windows of a Starbucks.

Not only does the media need to accurately represent the protest, it needs to present the issues that have sparked the protests in detail. Often, people feel that taking to the street in large numbers is the only way to get attention when the media is not functioning properly. Only with sustained organized effort, however, can these actions start to make a difference in media coverage (as in the case of the civil rights movement).

A democracy is only as good as good as its media.

@DoNotKnowMuch I participated in some anti-war protests in the 1970’s. My personal experience was peaceful, with police (some grudgingly) standing by. This was in stark contrast to many other protests of the era.

Civil disobedience takes a lot of self-discipline and skillful leadership, but it has been successful. There will always be some violence, but Martin Luther King and Gandhi both used it to great advantage. Civil disobedience is like judo in using the opponent’s strength against him. It may goad him into violence which, as @zenvelo pointed out, creates a negative reaction. Even if the result is attempting to arrest thousands of people, the result is effective because there are not enough jail cells to fit all the protesters.

Peaceful can work if the numbers are there. When the numbers lack, they get attention by what they do instead of just being there.

If violence is employed by a group or individual all credibility for that party is lost.

Well, just for one example, It’s awfully hard to support a regime when many or most of the taxpayers are in jail. You don’t have to throw a crooked government down, just stop holding it up.

Peaceful protest can certainly be effective when it results in a violent response. It enamors people against those who responded with violence and causes people to sympathize with the protesters. In some cases, as in Syria, it sparked civil war.

It mostly depends on the cops. When they realize that they have to switch sides to protect their own families, that is the turning point.