When should protesters be dispersed or asked to move?

So, there are a lot of people saying that the protesters should not be evicted from public parks or streets or buildings because it is their First Amendment right to protest.

So when, if ever, should it be okay for police to order a crowd of protesters to move or disperse?

Honestly, I don't see how people can honestly argue that police should not be able to legally intervene with anyone's right to protest, even when those protests violate other laws, especially when the laws they violate are not unreasonable laws. Where would we draw the limit to what laws could be violated and what laws couldn't? If you have one group of protesters smoking pot in front of city hall and another smoking cigarettes on city buses, both just as protests, do either have the right to do this? What if it is a group of women marching topless to protest sexist bare chest laws and another group of male and female nudists dancing naked in the streets/parks or on the sidewalks to protest clothing laws altogether? Should we just allow the people to be able to basically do as they please, including trashing an area and possibly causing sanitation and other problems up til they finally choose to go home just because they are protesting?

And where is the line between peaceful protest and unruly crowd? Why do the protesters and their supporters get to be the determiners of whether they were unruly instead of the police officers, in the immediate situation, followed and ultimately decided by the courts?

Cannot vote. They should be dispersed when they violate the law.

it depends on the location for me.... if the occupation impedes traffic or causes undue halts to commerce, or if they monopolize the public grounds they are on, or when their continued presence poses a public health risk (sanitation)
... they should move.

if they aren't interfering with other peoples rights, and have provided adequate sanitation measures, I don't care if they live there forever.

I also advocate for the protesting group to either provide independent security, or pay a nominal fee for the necessary police presence.

Public property is just that so protesting is not a problem. The problem arises when others because of the protesting no longer have access to the "public" property. This then infringes on that persons right to access public property.

So "occupying" public property is not free speech, it is an "occupation" which is illegal. Protesting Wall Street is one thing. Occupying public property and denying it's use by others is the problem.

Seriously? Bare breasted women is on the reasons to kick them OUT?

Keridan said:

Seriously? Bare breasted women is on the reasons to kick them OUT?

Click to expand...

I am a woman.

But, I'm pretty sure there have been incidents where women have been arrested for such protests when such things were in violation of laws.

I meant to include that you should assume that any specific events mentioned were violating some city ordinance. And it is multiple choice.

roguenuke said:

I am a woman.

But, I'm pretty sure there have been incidents where women have been arrested for such protests when such things were in violation of laws.

Click to expand...

I actually meant that as humor As a guy, I hardly find this the best reason to kick them out, but that doesn't mean I don't want them kicked out when they infringe on the rghts of others while excersizing theirs. Im all for the right to assemble, but there has been a lot of fail here from both the protesters and those working agaisnt them.

The fist amendment says you have the right to peaceably to assemble.It does not say you have the right to bogart public property.It does not say you have the right to violate laws that do not violate the constitution, it does say you have the right riot, block access or any other similar thing.

If they violate laws it is completely reasonable for them to be asked to leave and removed by force while pressing charges if necessary.

Keridan said:

I actually meant that as humor As a guy, I hardly find this the best reason to kick them out, but that doesn't mean I don't want them kicked out when they infringe on the rghts of others while excersizing theirs. Im all for the right to assemble, but there has been a lot of fail here from both the protesters and those working agaisnt them.

Click to expand...

Well considering that may be the only thing on the list that I would even consider worth getting arrested for, it's okay.

And I completely agree with the rest of what you said.

Protesters who are doing anything that is violating some city law should expect to get arrested. If they don't, but honestly it is because the violation really didn't put people in danger, then they should consider themselves lucky. Protesters should not be challenging and taunting police to use force, of some kind, against them to get them to move or to actually arrest them.

What I've already said. Protestors have the absolute right to peacefully protest, so long as they are willing to take the consequences of their actions. If they block public buildings, stop traffic, or set up a tent-city in a public park, fine with me. It's also fine with me for the police to take whatever action is necessary to clear the area(s) for public use, and to arrest those who were in violation of lawful orders.