Recently, two Hawaii law professors argued that the events at the access road to Mauna Kea were examples of “the Ahimsa of Gandhi, the Beloved Community of King … wholly within the tradition of the rule of law in democracies” (“Civil disobedience has changed the law,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Aug. 18).

Two days later during a visit to Mauna Kea, U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono said that she believed “that people have a right to civil disobedience” (“Hirono tours Mauna Kea site,” Star-Advertiser, Aug. 20).

What is interesting about these comments is that neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King Jr. ever disobeyed a law when “protesting” and always disobeyed an unjust law when “demonstrating.” The difference between “protesting” and “demonstrating” is critical for understanding what Gandhi and King actually did, as opposed to what other people think they did.

“Protesting,” when properly understood, never requires disobedience because those who are marching or standing with their signs are only “testifying for” their cause. Thus, those who stand by the side of the Saddle Road and “testify for” not building the Thirty Meter Telescope are disobeying no laws. They are lawfully exercising their right to assemble to “protest.”

“Demonstrating” is more complex. On the one hand, “demonstrating” often does require disobeying a law. But critically, Gandhi and King only disobeyed unreasonable and unjust laws, for example, laws about who can sit where in a bus or who can sit at a lunch counter and enjoy the 35-cent meatloaf special. Prices were different in 1960.

On the other hand, King in particular was clear that an effective “demonstration” had to be a direct action that simultaneously illustrated the injustice and the remedy. By not moving to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks simultaneously “demonstrated” both the injustice of the law she disobeyed and the remedy. Let passengers sit anywhere.

Likewise, by sitting on the lunch counter stools and waiting patiently to be served, the Nashville, Tenn., students simultaneously “demonstrated” both the injustice of the law and the remedy. Let customers able to pay for the 35-cent meatloaf special sit at the counter and enjoy their meal.

But what is happening up on Mauna Kea? By the side of the road, a lawful “protest” is occurring. No one is disobeying any laws as long as they are standing by the side of the road “testifying for” not building the TMT.

However, on the access road, an unlawful act is occurring. Laws about the unimpeded flow of traffic are being disobeyed. Laws against sitting in the middle of a road are not unjust. More importantly, the road block does not “demonstrate” the injustice of the traffic laws. And, because the traffic laws are reasonable and just, blocking the road does not propose a remedy to an injustice. The road block is very unlike what Rosa Parks did. And it is not a “demonstration” like the Nashville lunch counter sit-ins.

From the viewpoint of Gandhi and King, the road block does not “demonstrate” that the mountain is sacred. It misses the target. Instead, the road block is simply an act of force to compel others to do the will of those siting in middle of the road.

Gandhi and King would certainly support the “protest” on Mauna Kea, which disobeys no law, but I doubt very much they would support the road block, which disobeys very just and reasonable laws.

Professor Brien Hallett teaches a course on Gandhi and King at the Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii-Manoa.