Principled violations of the law are commonly classified into two types: conscientious objection and civil disobedience. The former is a personal refusal to abide by specific laws, driven by moral or religious convictions. The latter is widely conceived, following John Rawls, as "a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government." Some theorists have questioned particular features associated with civil disobedience, such as civility and publicity, but virtually all of them accept the communicative framework, according to which acts of civil disobedience are "a mode of address", as Rawls puts it, intended to appeal to the majority's sense of justice. The paper argues that this division fails to account for an important category of political disobedience, driven not by the expressive aim of addressing one's community, but by the practical aim of deploying civic force in order to stifle noxious exercise of political power. Such non-expressive, or political disobedience is prevalent in practice and of great importance for defending the free society, especially in the face of illiberal populist assaults against it.  

ֿ

‍