justforfun000 wrote:In a way it's a tough issue...some would say you are interrupting with free speech, but you could make a point on BOTH sides...
To be honest, this is something I think a true debate could be had about. I might be able to be swayed one way or the other on this one...What do you think they should allow on each side?
Why not aske the Supreme Court this question, as many already have?
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) -- The high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) -- The Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of the issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 596 (1941) -- A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets.
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) -- Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.
You could make the point both sides are within their Constitutional rights.