Civil unrest implies you decide not to follow the law, but in turn face the consequences - go to court, get fined, maybe imprisoned in the hope to show publicly that the laws that lead to the imprisonment are unjust, creating pressure to change the laws. It doesn't mean that you decide that the unjust laws just not apply to you and then get a free out of jail card.
Where did this come from? The requirement that you have to put yourself voluntary in jail or worst if the rules are aggressive enough is ridiculous. Civil unrest is when you are trying to solve larger societal problem through it. You are disadvantaged by doing it whether you turn yourself to law or not.
The difference against Uber is that they are not trying to solve some injustice or political problem. They are trying to get advantage over competition by ignoring the rules competition follows. It is just trying to get an advantage for themselves.
I can see the difference when the action is unseen, and you have to draw attention to it to go to court, but I don't see how it applies to a service done in public like Uber. Should they be suing themselves?
Well, they're now getting sued. The other option would have been to apply for a permit, get denied a permit, go to court. They chose not to but rather offer their service despite it being clearly in violation of the law. I feel no pity for them.
Sure, to some extend yes. But Ubers public line of defense is "this unfair law should not apply, have mercy with us." (which is incredibly whiny). Now if the CEO would say "I believe this is unfair and I'll go to prison for it.", that would gain some respect with me :)
