Give me a break, legal system never changes itself.
From Ghandi, Bolshevik revolution, Solidarity, French revolution to MLK.
Change only occurs due to mass civil dissonance or armed revolutions.
Never because you talk in a court and all people in power agreed you make sense.
What I was getting at is that protesting is not a very reliable way to effect change either. The "other side" of any protest is also trying to change the narrative and can often just wait out the protests. Look at how the various Occupy movements eventually dissolved after a few months because they weren't getting anywhere. Even the "main" camp (if one can talk about such a thing with Occupy) was eventually cleared by the police and didn't bother reforming somewhere else anymore. The gilets jaunes in France are currently experiencing the same problem.
I'd be quite interested in a way to reliably bring about societal change in a reasonable amount of time and in a morally defensible way, but I have not found any yet. Since philosophers have been debating this since the days of the ancient Greeks I'm a bit doubtful that this is the time when we'll finally figure it out.
Proper protests etc. are direct action by the people against capital. There are still disadvantages, but they can be drowned out by simple numbers.
Its easy to start. Just pick up some textbooks.
Seriously, all of those who goofed off in home ec and math complaining years later that they don't know how to cook or balance a checkbook.
The immediate resources were often subpar I will admit but don't say you weren't taught.
Sounds like it was worded wrong (depending what you mean by "protests"). "fight your battles in the courts" is generally a statement about non-violence, meant to suggest metaphorical fighting in courts instead of actual violence.