Robert Urbanek
Platinum Member
While the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to conduct demonstrations, courts have held the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly. Such regulations can include a requirement for a permit that states the date, time, and location of the proposed assembly.
Furthermore, there is no right to assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets.
An originalist interpretation of the 1st Amendment could be more restrictive. The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One can argue that the Founding Fathers intended the right to assembly as being part of the petition to government. Thus, demonstrations could conceivably be limited to public squares around the agencies of government, such as city halls, legislatures and governors’ offices that are the intended target of grievances. Business districts and residential areas could be ruled off limits.
Of course, restrictions of any kind are moot if politicians direct law enforcement agencies not to enforce them, the apparent case in many incidents in 2020 of demonstrators blocking public streets and even freeways without timely intervention by police.
Conceivably, further restrictions could come through civil actions. If motorists and businesses can show economic losses from obstructions to their activities by disruptive demonstrations, they could file a class action suit against both demonstrators and their organizers. However, such actions might not be productive if jurors are sympathetic to the cause of the demonstrators.
Furthermore, there is no right to assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets.
An originalist interpretation of the 1st Amendment could be more restrictive. The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One can argue that the Founding Fathers intended the right to assembly as being part of the petition to government. Thus, demonstrations could conceivably be limited to public squares around the agencies of government, such as city halls, legislatures and governors’ offices that are the intended target of grievances. Business districts and residential areas could be ruled off limits.
Of course, restrictions of any kind are moot if politicians direct law enforcement agencies not to enforce them, the apparent case in many incidents in 2020 of demonstrators blocking public streets and even freeways without timely intervention by police.
Conceivably, further restrictions could come through civil actions. If motorists and businesses can show economic losses from obstructions to their activities by disruptive demonstrations, they could file a class action suit against both demonstrators and their organizers. However, such actions might not be productive if jurors are sympathetic to the cause of the demonstrators.
