1st Amendment does not give Protestors the Right to Protest


Across this nation, thousands of individuals are gathering together to exercise their “supposed” First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. These protestors are expressing their outrage that Donald Trump was elected as the President of the United States of America.

The problem is that these protestors are disrupting the lives of those who live in the area of the protests. While they may have a First Amendment right to speech, that right ends when their speech interferes with the reasonable restrictions established by laws.

The Supreme Court does allow cities to restrict Free Speech on the grounds of reasonable Time, Place, and Manner. See Grayned v. The City of Rockford (1972). I guarantee you that none of these protestors have gone to the city and obtained a permit to block traffic in the recent protests.

If you wanted to hold a parade tomorrow morning to celebrate Donald Trump’s victory, your permit would most likely be granted as long as all the proper procedures were followed that the city has set forth. Tonight’s protestors do not care about the law. They did not get what they wanted in the election so they are going to break the law and they do not appear to have any fear of being arrested.

The protestors have no fear of being arrested because the cities in which they are protesting in most likely are being controlled by sympathetic politicians. These politicians hide behind a misinterpretation of the First Amendment in order to promote their political agenda.

Based upon exit polling data, it appears that these protestors are exercising their “supposed” First Amendment right to Free Speech because they chose to abstain from using their Constitutional right to vote.

These protestors failed to vote and now they are upset that the American people did not select a candidate that they wanted. However, this really should not be a surprise to anyone. Many of these individuals who are protesting appear like they are on public welfare. They are used to receiving something for nothing. If they can obtain welfare checks without working, why shouldn’t they receive the president that they desire without voting?

Donald Trump won because he was able to get Americans who wanted to work but were tired of losing their jobs to foreign countries to vote for him. Hillary Clinton lost because she was unable to energize her base.

Donald Trump won because there was a large portion of middle-class blue-collar voters who usually do not vote who turned up at the polls. Hillary Clinton lost because she could not turn out the black communities in the same numbers that President Obama was able to do.

Donald Trump won because he was able to find a new constituent that normally did not vote republican to back his bid for the presidency. Hillary Clinton lost because not only did she not look at expanding the democratic base.

This was an extremely close election and those who did not vote, should not be protesting the results of the election. As far as that goes, the fact that the election did not go your way does not give you the right to break the law and disrupt the lives of those around you. Furthermore, just because you agree with a protestor does not give you the right as a politician to ignore the law and thus endanger the lives, liberties, and property of those who you are obligated to protect.


  1. Concur with the author that the First doesn’t provide a “right to block traffic.” Police should arrest anyone who blocks the street. If they stand on the sidewalks and chant their slogans, great. They have the right to speak, to assemble and to petition for redress. But those rights do not include blocking traffic to intimidate or coerce.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Law

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.