Agreed, but there are no legal defenses against having done 2.

Civil disobedience requires breaking the law. With that comes the possibility of being legally prosecuted. Civil disobedience requires accepting that. And in fact, a large part of the effectiveness of civil disobedience comes from the fact that people accept the risk of arrest.

Just in case any readers are taking the above comment seriously, there is no modern legal system anywhere that allows exceptions based on the above. It is absurd nonsense.

I would encourage you to study peaceful revolutions (e.g. Mahatma Gandhi). Protestors protested against unjust laws by filling up the prisons. One can't be afraid to lose money or time when taking a moral stance. You are ofcourse doing this at great personal expense because you believe you are correct, not for external praise or glory.

Back up a moment, this is suggesting emailing a zip bomb[to yourself or an account you know will not open it.] I believe showing intent is a separate issue.

I mean, the above said valid, not legal. I've seen the word valid used more often to mean ethical than legal, so I think it's still accurate.

3. Jury nullification.

I probably agree that jury nullification is a "valid" pushback, based on my ethics and based on my limited understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

But do we know of any situations where it's actually worked? My impression is that judges for some reason fight hard against its use by defendants.

I think, back in the day, it was used to get away with lynchings. Not the best example, because laws against lynchings were actually also morally correct.

I don't know of any recent examples.