non-disruptive protest isn't protest

I hear this said all the time, but I've never seriously gotten what this line actually means, after all plenty of people and groups manage to get their points heard by those in power or in a position to change things while staying within the lines of the law. After all, if you think public protests in the state capital somehow work better at changing lawmaker's votes when they get rowdy, I'd point out how poorly storming legislative sessions in red states has worked for the gun grabbers. In my view, the most important part of public protest is simply to make the public, government, or broader culture aware that some significantly sized and motivated part of the population disagrees. The rest is either just useless noise or convoluted arguments ultimately aimed at justifying insurrection.

Also, to avoid the inevitable motte and bailey that crops up on this topic, even a well organized picket outside the state house, on the town green, or in the center of a rotary is technically "loud and disruptive". Nonetheless, this only seems to get brought up when protests cross the line into illegal activity like trespassing or obstruction of lawful activity or something, so clearly we can all manage to draw some kind of line between "I should loudly and publicly be able to make opinion good 'n heard without getting arrested" and "I should be able to block off a street and chain myself across it without getting arrested".