If there was a way perhaps to restrain the protester(s) in such a way that they can remain upright, present and vocal; but immobile, I’m confident that it would be so effective that law enforcement would be criticized for using anything but these apparatuses. Cost would not be a deterrent in this case.
I read comments like this and am always amazed at people's understanding of how protest works. I don't advocate for violence and destruction, but protest absolutely works because it makes things inconvenient for the people they are protesting.
When people complain about protesters getting in the way and being noisy and generally being inconvenient, they are bemoaning effective protest. That's a constitutional right.
>When people complain about protesters getting in the way and being noisy and generally being inconvenient, they are bemoaning effective protest. That's a constitutional right.
Since you did not exclude it, i will assume that by "being inconvenient" you mean all sorts of things done nowadays as parts of protests, like blocking roads and such... Thing is, it is not nearly as clear cut as you might think.
> 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.
There has not yet been a SCOTUS test on whether impeding others' free movement is considered peaceably assembling. I expect we'll see such a test soon. You indeed do have a right to petition government, and assemble peaceably, it is not clear that you have a right to inconvenience unrelated persons whose only fault is living in the same town and trying to get to school to pick up their kids while you block a road.
Inconveniencing unrelated persons is not nearly as clearly legal as you seem to claim it to be.
