The first condition is that if all other ordinary possibilities for changing the law have been used and have been rejected by legal institutions and therefore all options have been exhausted and that civil disobedience is their last choice of action. The second condition is that acts of civil disobedience generally target only substantial and clear violations of justice, such as an unjust equal freedoms and opportunity law rather than any law at all. This condition makes a lot of sense, because if everyone was allowed to protest every small law that they deem unfair, but which didn't have a huge impact on society, the larger protest wouldn't be viewed as harshly. importance because acts of civil disobedience would be something serious. it would happen daily. If all laws were called into question, civil disobedience would be too widespread and would ultimately undermine the function of government. Likewise, if they attempt to protest and change important laws, usually if they succeed, remaining injustices in the same area will also be corrected. The third option is that acts of civil disobedience should be limited to cases in which the dissident argues that all other people subjected to the same degree of injustice have the right to protest in the same way. Rawls argues that if the civil