Nonviolence, openness, and willingness to accept punishment are debated features rather than universally agreed requirements. Legal permission and moral justification also differ. A defensible account explains why disruption is proportionate, how affected people are heard, and whether ordinary democratic channels are genuinely available to those protesting.
In the sit-in example, ask whether the disruption targets the responsible institution or mainly falls on people with little influence over the disputed policy. Consider warnings, access for essential needs, and less burdensome tactics that could serve the same purpose. These questions do not assume that harmless dissent will always succeed. They make proportionality concrete and help distinguish an argument for justified disruption from the broader claim that any conscientious tactic is acceptable.