The unjust oppression of the majority over the minority, in which the minority stands for it's beliefs. When unjust and oppression are no longer acceptable and change is long needed. In my opinion both authors are correct, you can't have tyranny by the majority, when this is an injustice and an unjust law is no law at all.
King's argument on an unjust law is that "an unjust law is no law at all".[King 513] He also states that, Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly". He also argues that when you have tried to negotiate these injustices and they still exist with no change then:” You may as well ask: Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches etc...? Isn't negotiation a better path"? You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed , this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored". King is stating that after trying to negotiate the injustices and they seem to be ignored, one must make a peaceful stance against it.
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed". One must at all times protect our freedom from the oppressor, to remain free with that experience never taken for granted.
"For years now I have heard the words[sic] "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "never" we must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "injustice too long delayed is justice denied." One who wants justice, and has been denied it, wants it now, not having to keep living the...