Why do you protest?

I would not hesitate to overturn a tank, given the opportunity.

I think the short answer would be something like: Because I can. I think it's an important right that should not be taken for granted. I think the less we use certian rights the easier it is for governments to marginalize them take them away.

I think protests are a great way to draw attention to important issues. If a protest draws attention on any level then I think it accomplishes something. I don't think you have to overthrow the government to conduct an effect protest. It's all part of raising a general consciousness and helping to create a momentum. Every major social movement in the history of our country and probably all of Western Civilization involved some kind of protest. Seems like a no brainer to me.

A lot of gatherings that are called protests are not protests, or if they are (depending on exactly how you use/define the word) they carry no weight.
If you are not risking something you are not doing anything of any consequence whatsoever.
Holding a sign in a legal way where the cop tells you to is not a protest to me. It's a gathering.

When Gandhi did the salt walk his bodily freedom and even his life was at risk as he had informed those in power that he was going to break their law.
When he reached his destination he broke the law.
I call that protest.

I think Matt is on to something here--If a group of people gather with the particular aim of getting their point across, especially if it is a minority opinion, or calling out some policy or action that is being carried out, its a protest. How much impact it has is more of a case-by-case basis. The fact that people see each other, are seen by other people, come together--those things all have their impact, even if only long-term.

For instance, the 1962 March on Washington--a totally legal peaceful demonstration with no "sacrifice"--had a galvanizing effect on the embryonic civil rights movement. Would there have been desegregation without sit-ins and illegal marches in the south, and then later militant groups like the Panthers and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee? No. But would it have happened without the sympathy of thousands of "less militant" people all across the country? No. So the two things kind of worked together.

I was at some of the first anti-Vietnam war demos in the early 60s--these were all very legal marches (mostly of a hundred people at most) but they brought attention to something most people knew little about at the time. They were like seeds for the future. Being in the street--even legally--breaks the plane of regular existence, can put you in a different mindspace where you begin to think about what's possible.

As for the professional protesters--I'm with Neil on this one--I would applaud those people as well. And as for people not having focused anger--well it always seems like that until a big unifying cause rears its head. Not to belittle it--that is a real problem, and people do have to be thinking about what the central problem is and how best to resist that. But the same argument could have been made at any time in the 60s--indeed, it wasn't until very late in the 60s that the civil rights movement and the anti war movement were really going in (sort of) the same direction.