Civil disobedience is a separate tool from protest. It's also speech, but by definition unlawful. First Amendment precedent has long allowed reasonable time/place restrictions on speech.

Leaders of change movements should use civil disobedience strategically, because it comes with consequences and often creates a negative image of the movement in the public eye (i.e., the majority inclined to status quo).

Whether any particular instance of civil disobedience is morally correct depends on one's own values and beliefs. So commentators voicing preference for protest, not civil disobedience, are usually expressing their view of the change movement's goals.