America is schizophrenic when it comes to rules. We celebrate the rule of law, rightly so, as a founding principle of our nation. Respect for the law has been essential to America's survival because it sets an orderly process to hold all accountable according to what's supposed to be a universal standard. Whether it's applied uniformly is debatable, but the standard itself is not.

At the same time, we celebrate rebels, outlaws and rule-breakers. Films such as "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Shawshank Redemption," "Dirty Dozen" and "Bonnie and Clyde" didn't become classics because their protagonists were sweethearts who bowed to authority and followed the straight and narrow path.

Today's tea party conservatives emulate the celebrants of the 1773 Boston Tea Party who defied British authority and risked severe punishment to challenge taxation without representation. America is now a free nation of over-caffeinated coffee drinkers largely because of the rebellion inspired by Boston.

Modern liberals herald the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his willingness to be beaten and bloodied by police in the Deep South to defend equal rights for blacks.

Those who engage in civil disobedience proceed with the full knowledge that, rightly or wrongly, they are likely to face punishment for defying the law. That's what makes their courage so admirable.

State Rep. Bruce Franks, D-St. Louis, was a proud participant in the Ferguson protests and defends the obstruction of interstate highways and other disruptions as necessary to shake people out of their lethargy.

"As long as it's not making everybody else uncomfortable, it's OK to protest. But the moment when you're making everybody uncomfortable, or you don't necessarily see the measurable outcome of said protest, then it's unlawful or it's against what's right," he complained, according to Missourinet.

He and other protesters seem to want it both ways. They want to advance their cause with showy acts of defiance yet react with outrage at the police response when their civil disobedience turns into outright criminality.

If Franks takes issue with how society sets the dividing line between lawful and unlawful then, as the newest St. Louis state representative, where would he draw it? Because once you rationalize violating the law in the name of your cause, the sky's the limit.

Consider the chaotic escalation after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson:

—A peaceful street protest turned into acts of wanton looting and vandalism that included the torching of a QuikTrip gas station and convenience store.

—In November 2014, St. Louis County's decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson for Brown's death prompted additional rioting. Dozens of buildings and businesses were burned or vandalized. Gunfire was rampant.

—Amid still-simmering racial tensions in December 2014, a 32-year-old Bosnian man was beaten to death with a hammer in St. Louis. Four black teenagers were arrested.

—More violence erupted in March 2015. Two officers were shot.

—On the first anniversary of Brown's death, violence resumed. On the second, during a nighttime march, a protester ventured onto a darkened road and was hit by a car. Gunfire erupted.

The pattern suggests that, once a few individuals decide to escalate protest from the realm of civil disobedience to something more impactful, chaos and tragedy can quickly ensue. People take their cues from each other. Once an atmosphere of disorder prevails, the law becomes meaningless. Innocent shop owners absorb the financial brunt of vandalism. People get killed.

One Missouri legislator thinks the answer is to dramatically stiffen laws related to participating in an organized protest on thoroughfares, including interstate highways, by establishing potential penalties of up to seven years in prison.

That is ridiculous overkill, reflective of the naivete of its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Nick Marshall, whose suburban Kansas City district probably hasn't experienced an organized street protest in decades.

That said, the other side makes the equally ridiculous argument that highway-blocking protests are protected by the First Amendment.

"This goes beyond having a chilling effect on free speech, it puts a freeze on it," James Harrington, a civil rights attorney in Texas, told USA Today, referring to a national movement to duplicate Marshall's bill.

Under that rationale, any punishment or attempt to remove protesters violates free-speech rights. Where, then, do we draw the line?

And since the protesters are so adamant about protecting free speech, would they defend religious conservatives' right to block highways to protest LGBT rights or to block access to abortion clinics?

The violence and threats that accompanied Berkeley speaking engagements by conservatives Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos speak volumes about the radical left's definition of free speech. They want the right to protest only what their political agenda calls for. They demand total flexibility to declare what's permissible and what's not, depending on their list of circumstances.

And if the chaos they foment causes inconvenience or makes the rest of us uncomfortable, well, that's our problem.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH