Suppose that in late 2020 tens of thousands of pro-life citizens decided to take to the streets to protest the 60 million unborn lives that have been taken since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. The protesters took over the major streets of every major city in America, and some participants engaged in massive looting, arson, and other acts of (mostly peaceful) violence after dark. Abortion clinics and police departments were burned to the ground, and at least a few people were murdered.
Now suppose that in response to the violence a number of cities imposed two restrictions on protests:
1. An adoption of an 8 PM curfew on all demonstrations on the streets, sidewalks, and parks of the cities.
2. A restriction on the blocking of traffic on major commuter routes.
Does enforcement of these restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of the fiery but mostly peaceful ULM protesters?
See casebook p. 1459 Schneider case:
“Municipal authorities, as trustees for the public, have the duty to keep their communities’ streets open and available for movement of people and property, the primary purpose to which the streets are dedicated. So long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature, it may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets. For example, a person could not exercise this liberty by taking his stand in the middle of a crowded street, contrary to traffic regulations, and maintain his position to the stoppage of all traffic..."
Should cities allow demonstrators to block streets and highways, a practice that basically falsely imprisons drivers in their bloked cars for hours in some cases?
No comments:
Post a Comment