Introduction
Protest, in its myriad forms—from mass marches and sit-ins to symbolic acts of civil disobedience—is not an aberration in a democratic society but one of its essential, life-sustaining components. It serves as a primary vehicle for public expression, a catalyst for social change, and a crucial mechanism for holding state power accountable. Historically, it has been the “moral-political force” through which citizens challenge injustice, seek redress for grievances, and avoid the political alienation that festers in the absence of a meaningful public voice. The right to assemble and protest allows the “force of numbers” to give visibility and political leverage to demands that might otherwise be ignored.
At the heart of this right, however, lies an inherent and perpetual tension. Democratic governance requires balancing the fundamental right of the people to assemble and voice dissent with the state’s legitimate and necessary interest in maintaining public order, ensuring public safety, and protecting national security. This balancing act defines the constitutional boundaries of protest and shapes the nature of the state’s response. How a society navigates this tension is a direct measure of its commitment to democratic principles.
The right to protest, while enshrined in international and national law as a fundamental democratic principle, is facing unprecedented pressure. A global trend towards the securitization of public space, enabled by new surveillance technologies and expansive public order legislation, is constricting civic space and redefining the boundaries of permissible dissent. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of this evolving legal landscape, examining the philosophical foundations, comparative constitutional frameworks, and the widening gap between legal protections and state practice.
Part I: Philosophical and Legal Foundations
1.1 The Democratic Tradition of Dissent
The modern right to protest is built upon a rich intellectual lineage that frames dissent not as an act of anarchy, but as a principled engagement with the law. This tradition finds one of its most influential expressions in the work of Henry David Thoreau, who articulated the concept of civil disobedience as a moral imperative. His refusal to pay a poll tax was a protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War, establishing a framework for principled, conscientious lawbreaking as a response to state-sanctioned injustice.
This philosophy was later developed into a systematic political strategy by Mahatma Gandhi. A lawyer by training, Gandhi engineered a pattern of non-violent coercion designed to effectuate change within the legal system, particularly when its normal procedures were co-opted or inadequate to address profound injustices. This Gandhian model, which heavily influenced the American Civil Rights Movement, posits that protest is not anti-law but is rather a democratic technique for compelling a re-evaluation of unjust laws. It operates within a democratic, consensual, and non-violent tradition, seeking to persuade rather than to overthrow.
Civil disobedience, as a specific form of protest, is therefore distinguished from ordinary criminal activity by several key features. It must be a deliberate, principled, and conscientious act, motivated by a sincere belief that a law or policy is unjust. Crucially, it is a communicative act. It functions as a form of symbolic speech, an “appeal to the capacity for reason and sense of justice of the majority,” aiming to contribute arguments to the public sphere and call for reform. This communicative purpose is central to its legitimacy within a democratic framework. Protest is contextualized within a broader spectrum of non-violent action, which can range from “non-violent coercion,” such as economic boycotts and labor strikes, to acts of principled civil disobedience. The “sit-in,” a hallmark of the Civil Rights Movement, for instance, has its origins in the “sit-down strikes” of the 1930s labor movement, where workers used their physical presence to disrupt economic activity and compel concessions.
1.2 Protest as a Communicative Act
The philosophical understanding of protest as a form of dialogue finds a direct parallel in its treatment under international law. Human rights bodies and legal standards overwhelmingly conceive of protest as a collective, expressive act. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, in its authoritative interpretation of the right, explains that peaceful assembly is principally for “expressive purposes”. Similarly, Inter-American standards define protest as an action “aimed at expressing ideas, views, or values of dissent, opposition, denunciation, or vindication”. This “primacy of communication” is what imbues a physical gathering with political power; the collective presence of individuals lends visibility and weight to a demand that might otherwise be dismissed.
This legal and philosophical nexus—the idea that protest is fundamentally a communicative appeal to the community’s sense of justice—has profound implications for how state restrictions are evaluated. When state authorities regulate the “time, place, and manner” of a protest, they are not merely managing logistics. They are, in effect, regulating the potential efficacy of a communicative act. A restriction that prevents a protest from being seen or heard by its intended audience—whether the public or government officials—is not a neutral regulation but a substantive impairment of the expressive right itself. The right to assemble is rendered hollow if the message it is designed to convey is stifled.
While the legal framework is built around the concept of “peaceful” assembly, a complex philosophical debate has emerged regarding the legitimacy of violent protest. The prevailing liberal tradition largely prohibits political violence. However, some theorists argue that in the face of serious and ongoing injustice, where non-violent channels for communication have been systematically closed or ignored, suitably constrained and non-lethal violence may be justified. In this view, such acts are not a descent into revolution but a desperate, last-ditch effort to remedy injustice and force an entry into a political dialogue from which a group has been excluded. This challenges the simple binary of peaceful versus violent protest, suggesting that violence can, in extreme circumstances, function as a form of “moral and political suasion”.
1.3 The International Legal Framework
The right to protest is firmly established in international human rights law, creating a normative standard against which the actions of individual states can be measured. The foundational document is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 20 of the UDHR guarantees the “right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,” a protection that covers a wide array of activities beyond formal marches, including sit-ins, vigils, and even online associations. The framework established by the UDHR imposes a dual obligation on states: a negative duty to refrain from interfering with peaceful assemblies and, critically, a positive duty to take measures to facilitate them, such as by providing traffic management or ensuring security.
This right was codified into binding international law through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified by 167 states. Article 21 of the ICCPR states simply, “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized”. The drafting history of this article shows a deliberate intent to create a broad obligation on states to secure this right for all persons, even against interference by private actors. The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 37, adopted in 2020, provides the most comprehensive and authoritative interpretation of Article 21, outlining its scope and the strict conditions under which any restrictions may be imposed.
A cornerstone of the international legal standard is the presumption of peacefulness. An assembly is to be considered peaceful unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proving violent intent lies with the state authorities. Furthermore, the sporadic and isolated violent acts of a few individuals do not render an entire assembly non-peaceful. The state’s obligation is to de-escalate the situation and protect the rights of the peaceful majority, not to dissolve the entire event. This principle is designed to prevent states from using the actions of a few as a pretext to suppress legitimate, overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations.
Despite the robustness of this international framework, a significant and growing “compliance gap” is evident. While international law mandates facilitation and presumes peacefulness, a global trend shows states enacting increasingly restrictive domestic legislation. This suggests a systemic undermining of the international standard. States are increasingly using the permissible grounds for restriction under the ICCPR—such as “public order” or “national security”—as a pretext to override their primary obligation to facilitate assembly. This exploitation of legal loopholes to serve domestic political agendas represents a core challenge to the contemporary right to protest.
Part II: A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Protections
The abstract principles of international law are given concrete form through the constitutional frameworks of individual nations. An examination of four key democracies—the United States, Germany, India, and South Africa—reveals how different historical experiences and political philosophies have shaped the legal architecture of the right to protest.
2.1 The United States: A Marketplace of Ideas
In the United States, the right to protest is not explicitly named in the Constitution but is understood to arise from the confluence of several protections within the First Amendment: the freedom of speech, the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Historically, the right of petition was considered primary, with assembly serving as the instrumental means to achieve it.
The practical meaning and scope of these rights were not defined in the abstract but were forged in the crucible of social movements. The abolitionist petition campaigns of the 1830s first brought the right of petition to national prominence. Centuries later, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, with its strategic use of non-violent marches, sit-ins, and demonstrations, forced a societal and judicial reckoning with the centrality of protest to democratic change. The movement’s success, culminating in landmark federal laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, provided definitive proof of protest’s power to transform law and society.
U.S. judicial interpretation of these rights is dominated by the public forum doctrine. This legal framework categorizes public property to determine the level of constitutional protection afforded to expressive activity. “Traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, receive the highest level of protection, and the government’s authority to regulate speech in these spaces is “sharply circumscribed”. The Supreme Court has also extended First Amendment protection beyond verbal speech to encompass symbolic or “expressive conduct,” acknowledging that powerful messages can be conveyed through actions like wearing a black armband to protest a war or burning a flag as a political statement.
2.2 Germany: A Reaction to History
Germany’s approach to the right of assembly is a direct and deliberate response to its history of totalitarianism. Article 8 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) provides a powerful and explicit guarantee: “All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission”. This robust protection, particularly the freedom from prior permission, was designed to prevent any future state from suppressing dissent as the Nazi regime had done. The entire German constitutional order is anchored in Article 1, which declares human dignity to be inviolable, a principle that informs the interpretation of all other fundamental rights.
A key distinction in German law exists between indoor and outdoor assemblies. Indoor assemblies are subject to almost no restrictions and require no prior notification. Outdoor assemblies, however, may be restricted by or pursuant to a law, a distinction based on their greater potential to affect public order and the rights of others. Federal and state assembly acts generally require organizers of outdoor demonstrations to provide 48 hours’ notice, a measure intended to allow authorities to protect the assembly and manage public space, not to grant permission.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has served as a vigilant guardian of this right. In its landmark 1985 Brokdorf decision, the court invalidated a blanket ban on protests near a nuclear power plant, emphasizing the fundamental importance of freedom of assembly in a vibrant democracy. The court also affirmed that spontaneous assemblies, which by their nature cannot meet the 48-hour notice requirement, are constitutionally protected. Since a 2006 federalism reform, legislative authority over assembly law has shifted to the sixteen federal states (
Länder), resulting in a patchwork of different regulations. Some states have enacted more restrictive laws that have been criticized by civil liberties groups and are facing constitutional challenges.
2.3 India: A Right Derived and Restricted
In India, the right to protest is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Instead, it has been judicially derived from the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19(1). Specifically, it is read as an amalgamation of the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms (Article 19(1)(b)).
However, unlike the near-absolutist language of the U.S. First Amendment, these rights in India are explicitly qualified. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution permit the state to impose “reasonable restrictions” on these freedoms. These restrictions can be enacted in the interests of, among other things, “the sovereignty and integrity of India,” “the security of the State,” “public order,” decency, or morality. This constitutional structure creates a permanent tension between the right and the state’s power to curtail it.
The Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed that the right to protest is a fundamental right. In the 2012 case In re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, the Court declared that this right “cannot be taken away by an arbitrary or executive or legislative action”. More recently, however, the Court’s jurisprudence reflects a greater emphasis on balancing this right with public convenience. In its 2020 judgment concerning the Shaheen Bagh protests against a controversial citizenship law, the Court held that while the right to peaceful protest is protected, demonstrations cannot occupy public ways and spaces “indefinitely” and should ideally take place in designated areas. This reflects an ongoing judicial effort to mediate between the right to dissent and the maintenance of public order. Concurrently, there is significant academic and civil society concern over the increasing use of broad criminal statutes—including colonial-era sedition laws and modern anti-terrorism acts—to investigate and prosecute government critics, which has a tangible chilling effect on dissent.
2.4 South Africa: A Tool for Transformation
The South African Constitution, adopted in 1996 after the fall of apartheid, provides one of the world’s most explicit and progressive protections for the right to protest. Section 17 of the Constitution states: “Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions”. This right is not seen merely as a civil liberty but as a foundational tool for social change. In the context of South Africa’s history, protest is considered a “gateway right to social justice,” essential for marginalized communities to participate in the democratic process and to continue the struggle against the deep-seated inequalities left by apartheid.
The entire constitutional project in South Africa is one of transformative constitutionalism—the idea that the Constitution is a document designed to actively transform society from its deeply divided and unjust past toward a future founded on “human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms”. The right to protest is a key engine of this transformation, empowering citizens to demand the fulfillment of the Constitution’s social and economic promises.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa has robustly defended this vision. In the landmark 2018 case of Mlungwana v The State, the Court struck down a provision of the Regulation of Gatherings Act that criminalized the failure of an organizer to give prior notice of a gathering. The Court’s unanimous judgment found that making this failure a crime had a profound chilling effect, deterring the exercise of a fundamental right. It held that such a limitation was unjustifiable in an open and democratic society, especially for the poor, the marginalized, and children, for whom protest is often the only available and effective form of political expression.
The constitutional framing of the right to protest in each of these nations is a direct reflection of its unique historical trauma and political aspirations. Germany’s strong protection is a clear repudiation of its Nazi past. South Africa’s explicit enumeration of the right to “demonstrate” is a tool to dismantle the legacy of apartheid. The U.S. framework, phrased as a negative restraint on government (“Congress shall make no law…”), embodies its revolutionary origins and deep-seated suspicion of state power. India’s inclusion of a “reasonable restrictions” clause reflects the post-colonial state’s dual challenge of guaranteeing liberty while preserving national unity in a vast and diverse society. The legal text, therefore, is not merely an abstract statement of principle but a historical artifact that encapsulates each nation’s core political narrative.
This historical context also shapes the role of the judiciary. In some nations, the judiciary is the primary creator of the right, as in India, where the right to protest is a judicial interpretation of other enumerated freedoms. In others, like Germany and South Africa, the judiciary acts as a powerful
guardian, striking down legislative and executive actions that infringe upon the explicit constitutional text. In the U.S., the judiciary has acted as a
balancer, creating complex doctrines like the public forum doctrine to mediate between competing rights and interests. This variance demonstrates that the practical strength of the right to protest depends less on the constitutional text alone and more on the institutional power and prevailing philosophy of the judiciary in each political system.
Table 1: Comparative Overview of Constitutional Protest Rights
| Jurisdiction | Core Legal Provision(s) | Key Judicial Interpretation/Landmark Case | Notification/Permit Requirement | Standard for Permissible Restrictions |
| ICCPR | Article 21 | General Comment No. 37 | Not required, unless restriction is justified; no criminal penalty for failure | Must be prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim, and proportionate |
| United States | First Amendment (Speech, Assembly, Petition) | Public Forum Doctrine | Permit often required for large events, marches blocking traffic | Content-neutral “time, place, and manner” restrictions that serve a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels |
| Germany | Article 8, Basic Law | Brokdorf decision (1985) | 48-hour notice for outdoor assemblies; none for indoor or spontaneous assemblies | May be restricted “by or pursuant to a law” only in the case of outdoor assemblies |
| India | Article 19(1)(a) & (b) | Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh case) | No Objection Certificate (NOC) generally required from police | “Reasonable restrictions” in the interest of public order, state security, sovereignty, etc. |
| South Africa | Section 17, Constitution | Mlungwana v. The State (2018) | Notice is required, but failure to notify is not a criminal offense | Must be reasonable and justifiable in an “open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom” |
Part III: Defining the Boundaries: State Regulation and Permissible Restrictions
While the right to protest is fundamental, it is not absolute. Every legal system recognizes that the state may impose certain limitations to protect legitimate public interests. The critical question is where the line is drawn and what standards govern the imposition of such restrictions.
3.1 The Tripartite Test: Legality, Necessity, and Proportionality
International human rights law provides a rigorous, three-part test that any restriction on the right to peaceful assembly must satisfy. This standard, derived from the ICCPR and applied by human rights bodies globally, acts as a crucial safeguard against arbitrary state action.
- Legality: The restriction must be “prescribed by law.” This means it must have a clear and accessible basis in domestic law, allowing individuals to foresee what conduct is prohibited.
- Legitimate Aim: The restriction must serve one of the legitimate aims enumerated in the treaty, such as the interests of national security, public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
- Necessity and Proportionality: The restriction must be demonstrably “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve that aim. This implies that there must be a pressing social need for the restriction, and it must be proportionate to the aim pursued. The state must choose the least intrusive means available to achieve its objective.
Crucially, the burden of justifying any restriction falls squarely on the state. Restrictions are to be treated as the exception, not the rule, with the default position always being in favor of upholding the right.
3.2 “Time, Place, and Manner” Regulations
The “time, place, and manner” doctrine, most extensively developed in U.S. jurisprudence, is the primary mechanism through which states regulate the logistics of protest while ostensibly respecting the right itself. This doctrine permits governments to impose reasonable and content-neutral regulations to ensure public order and safety. Common examples include:
- Time: Prohibiting the use of loud sound amplification in residential areas late at night.
- Place: Restricting protests immediately outside hospitals, courthouses during trials, or schools during class hours to prevent disruption.
- Manner: Requiring permits for large parades or marches that necessitate street closures and traffic diversions.
The lynchpin of this doctrine is the principle of content neutrality. The regulations must be applied equally to all speech, regardless of the message or viewpoint being expressed. A city cannot use a permit ordinance to selectively allow protests it favors while denying permits to those with controversial or critical messages. Furthermore, any such regulation must leave open “ample alternative channels for communication,” ensuring that protesters are not effectively silenced.
However, these seemingly neutral legal doctrines can become highly political tools in practice. Because the state holds the power to define what constitutes a threat to “public order” or a “clear and present danger,” there is significant room for discretionary and biased enforcement. A police commander’s on-the-ground assessment of a situation can be influenced by the message of the protest or the identity of the protesters. This creates an inherent vulnerability in the legal framework: the neutral principles on paper can be subverted by subjective and discriminatory application in the streets, undermining the core tenet of content neutrality.
3.3 The Ambiguous Line of “Peaceful” Assembly
International and domestic law universally protects “peaceful” assembly. However, the state retains the monopoly on defining what constitutes “violence” or a breach of the peace, and this power can be used to legitimize repressive actions. The distinction is legally critical, as assemblies deemed non-peaceful—typically characterized by widespread and serious violence against persons or property—fall outside the scope of legal protection.
According to UN guidance, “violence” typically entails the use of physical force by participants that is likely to result in injury, death, or serious damage to property. A crucial caveat, as noted earlier, is that the violent acts of a small minority of participants should not be used as a pretext to declare the entire assembly non-peaceful or to disperse the peaceful majority. Law enforcement’s authority to break up a gathering is limited to situations where there is a “clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety”. This high threshold is designed to prevent premature or unwarranted dispersal orders.
3.4 Balancing Protest Rights with Other Interests
The right to protest does not exist in a vacuum; it must be balanced against other legitimate interests and rights within a democratic society. The most common grounds for restriction are public order and national security, though these terms must be interpreted narrowly to prevent their use as a catch-all justification for suppressing dissent.
A more frequent and tangible conflict arises with the rights of others, such as the right to free movement and the right to conduct business. This is the central issue in protests that involve blocking traffic, occupying public squares, or picketing outside private businesses. Courts are often called upon to balance the protesters’ right to effective communication with the public’s right to go about their daily lives without undue disruption.
A particularly sharp conflict emerges at the intersection of protest and hate speech. This area reveals a profound philosophical divergence between different democratic traditions. The United States, with its strong commitment to the “marketplace of ideas,” provides almost absolute First Amendment protection to speech, including hateful and offensive speech, as long as it does not cross the high threshold of being a “true threat” or “incitement to imminent lawless action”. Conversely, Germany and other European nations, prioritizing the constitutional value of human dignity, have enacted laws that explicitly criminalize hate speech, incitement to hatred, and Holocaust denial. South Africa’s Constitution similarly carves out hate speech from its protection of free expression. This is not merely a technical legal difference but a fundamental conflict between two core liberal values: freedom of expression and the protection of human dignity. The U.S. model is rooted in a fear of state censorship and a belief that bad speech is best countered by more speech. The German model is rooted in the historical trauma of the Holocaust, which demonstrated that words can be a precursor to genocide, and thus concludes that some forms of speech are so corrosive that they undermine the very possibility of a dignified and equal society. How a nation resolves this conflict determines the legal boundaries for a significant category of protest.
Part IV: The State’s Response: From Facilitation to Repression
The legal framework governing protest is only one part of the equation; the other is the state’s practical response on the ground. This response can range from facilitation, which upholds the right, to repression, which effectively nullifies it.
4.1 Policing Protest: Best Practices vs. Escalatory Tactics
Under international human rights standards, the primary duty of law enforcement in the context of a protest is to facilitate its peaceful conduct. This approach, often termed “crowd management” rather than “crowd control,” emphasizes communication, de-escalation, and proportionality. Best practices involve police liaising with protest organizers beforehand, clearly communicating expectations, and tailoring the police presence and posture to the actual behavior of the crowd. The goal is to manage public space in a way that allows for expressive activity while minimizing disruption and preventing violence.
In stark contrast to this model is the growing trend toward the militarization of protest policing. This involves the deployment of officers in intimidating riot gear, the use of armored vehicles, and the presence of military-grade equipment. Criminologists and policing experts widely view this approach as counterproductive. Rather than deterring violence, an aggressive and overwhelming police presence is often perceived as a provocation, creating a feedback loop of escalation where police and protesters become increasingly hostile. This dynamic can transform a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation, a self-fulfilling prophecy where the state’s response co-authors the very disorder it claims to be controlling. The choice of policing strategy is therefore not simply a reaction to protester behavior but is a primary determinant of it.
4.2 The Use of Force
When force is used during a protest, its application is governed by strict international legal standards, notably the principles of necessity and proportionality. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials dictate that force should be used only as a last resort, when all non-violent means have been exhausted. Any force used must be proportionate to the threat posed and must be the minimum amount necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective. The use of lethal force is permissible only when “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”.
Modern riot control relies heavily on so-called “less-lethal” weapons, such as tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, foam rounds, and stun grenades. While designed to be less deadly than conventional firearms, these weapons can and do cause serious injury and death, particularly when used improperly or indiscriminately. The police response to protests in Los Angeles in recent years, where officers fired over a thousand projectiles at demonstrators in a single day, highlights the potential for massive and disproportionate use of such munitions. Such incidents have led to legal challenges and new state-level laws in the U.S. restricting their use, for example, by prohibiting police from firing indiscriminately into a crowd or aiming at a person’s head or neck.
4.3 The Criminalization of Dissent
Beyond the immediate physical response, states are increasingly using legislation to criminalize protest activities. Since 2017, a wave of anti-protest bills has been introduced in state legislatures across the United States. These laws employ several common tactics:
- Creating extreme penalties for relatively minor offenses, such as reclassifying the misdemeanor of blocking a roadway as a felony.
- Using vague and overbroad definitions of terms like “riot,” which can be interpreted to encompass peaceful protesters who are present at a demonstration where a few individuals engage in property damage.
- Expanding liability to hold protest organizers and supporting organizations financially or criminally responsible for the actions of individuals, even if they did not direct or condone them.
- Providing civil immunity to individuals, such as drivers who injure or kill protesters who are blocking a road, thereby encouraging vigilantism.
The primary consequence of this legislative trend is a significant chilling effect on free speech and assembly. The prospect of facing felony charges, lengthy prison sentences, or crippling financial liability can deter ordinary citizens and organizations from exercising their constitutional rights. These laws are rarely neutral; they are often introduced in direct response to specific protest movements, such as those for racial justice or environmental protection, and their enforcement disproportionately affects already marginalized and heavily policed communities.
This legislative criminalization and the operational militarization of policing are two facets of a broader phenomenon: the securitization of dissent. Protest is increasingly framed not as a healthy and necessary function of democracy, but as a threat to public safety and national security. This reframing provides the political and legal justification for more repressive state actions, creating a dangerous cycle. The law defines protesters as a security threat, police treat them as such, and any hostile reaction from protesters is then used as retroactive justification for the necessity of the initial repressive measures. This cycle systematically shrinks the space for legitimate dissent by recasting a political right as a security problem.
4.4 Case Studies in State Response
Recent events provide clear examples of these dynamics in action. The state response to the nationwide Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in the United States in 2020 was characterized by an aggressive and often violent approach. Governors invoked emergency powers, police departments deployed unlawful force against peaceful demonstrators, and the executive branch threatened to deploy active-duty military forces to “dominate” the streets. The forceful clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., became a national symbol of a repressive state response.
Another context is the response of educational institutions to student walkouts. Protests by high school students, such as those following the 2016 election of Donald Trump, place school administrators in a difficult position, forcing them to balance their duty to ensure student safety with their responsibility to respect students’ rights to political expression. The varied responses from different school districts highlight the lack of a consistent framework for handling youth protest.
Part V: Contemporary Challenges and Intersections
The traditional legal frameworks governing protest are being tested and reshaped by a series of powerful contemporary forces, from technological innovation to the expansion of the security state.
5.1 The Digital Panopticon: Surveillance and Privacy
The digital age has equipped law enforcement with an unprecedented arsenal of surveillance tools that can be deployed against protesters. These technologies include vast networks of CCTV cameras often enhanced with facial recognition software, automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that track vehicle movements, and the ability to obtain vast quantities of geolocation data from mobile phones. Police can also use cell-site simulators, known as “Stingrays,” which mimic cell towers to intercept mobile phone signals and data in a specific area.
This pervasive surveillance creates a profound chilling effect on the rights of assembly and association. The knowledge that one’s presence at a protest can be recorded, identity confirmed through facial recognition, and movements tracked via their phone can deter individuals from participating, for fear of being placed on a government watchlist, harassed, or targeted for future investigation. The use of “geofence warrants,” which compel tech companies like Google to turn over data on every device present in a specific geographic area during a certain time, represents a particularly grave threat to privacy, as it sweeps up data from countless innocent protesters and bystanders in the search for a few potential lawbreakers. In response, protesters and civil liberties groups are developing and promoting privacy-protective tactics, such as disabling biometric phone locks, using airplane mode, wearing face coverings, and scrubbing identifying metadata from digital photos before sharing them.
5.2 Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword
Social media platforms have revolutionized protest movements, acting as powerful tools for mobilization, coordination, and amplification. Movements from the Arab Spring to Black Lives Matter have demonstrated how platforms like Twitter and Facebook can be used to rapidly disseminate information, coordinate logistics in real-time, and bypass traditional media gatekeepers to broadcast a message to a global audience.
However, this technology is a double-edged sword. The same platforms that enable mobilization are also potent vectors for the spread of misinformation and disinformation, which can be used to discredit movements, sow division, or incite violence. They are also highly effective tools for state surveillance and censorship, allowing authorities to monitor activists and disrupt organizational efforts. Furthermore, the ease of online engagement has given rise to the phenomenon of “slacktivism”—low-effort digital participation like sharing a hashtag or signing an online petition—which can create the illusion of a powerful movement without translating into the sustained, real-world action necessary for meaningful change.
Technology has thus fundamentally altered the power dynamics of protest. It has democratized the ability to organize and broadcast a message, thereby diffusing power to the grassroots. Simultaneously, it has centralized and enhanced the state’s capacity to monitor, track, and control its population, concentrating power in the hands of government. The future of protest will be defined by this ongoing, asymmetrical technological arms race between the quest for protester anonymity and the expansion of state surveillance.
5.3 The Vanishing Public Square: Protest in Privatized Spaces
The physical landscape of public life has changed. Traditional town squares and public parks, the quintessential “public forums” protected by constitutional law, have in many cities been supplemented or replaced by privately owned but publicly accessible spaces, such as shopping malls, corporate plazas, and mixed-use developments. This shift poses a significant legal challenge to the right to protest.
In the U.S., the First Amendment’s protections have traditionally been understood to apply only to government (“state action”), not to the actions of private property owners. As a general rule, a private owner can set rules for speech on their property and can have protesters removed for trespassing. While some state constitutions, notably California’s, have been interpreted to provide free speech protections in large shopping malls, this is the exception rather than the rule. This “state action doctrine” creates a legal vacuum, as more and more of what functions as the public square falls under private control, effectively shrinking the physical space available for protected expressive activity.
5.4 The Shadow of National Security: Counter-Terrorism and Civil Liberties
In the decades following the September 11, 2001 attacks, nations around the world have enacted a vast and complex web of counter-terrorism legislation. While ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorist violence, these laws often contain broad and vaguely worded definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism” that can be weaponized to suppress legitimate political dissent, human rights advocacy, and peaceful protest.
The implementation of counter-terrorism measures has consistently led to the curtailment of fundamental civil liberties, including the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly. Governments have used these laws to justify increased surveillance, the infiltration of activist groups, and the prosecution of protesters on terrorism-related charges. This approach creates a false dichotomy between security and liberty, often sacrificing rights for policies that are not only repressive but may also be counterproductive, alienating communities whose cooperation is essential to effective security.
These contemporary challenges—the privatization of public space, the expansion of digital surveillance, and the broadening of counter-terrorism laws—are not isolated trends. They are mutually reinforcing phenomena that are converging to create a “perfect storm” for the erosion of protest rights. Privatization removes physical spaces from constitutional protection. Digital surveillance makes participation in the remaining public spaces a significant personal risk. And overbroad security laws provide the legal pretext for arresting those who dare to protest anyway. This multi-front constriction of civic space—physical, digital, and legal—is the defining challenge to the right to protest in the 21st century.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The right to protest stands as a paradox in modern democracies. Normatively, it is stronger than ever, enshrined in international treaties and protected by the constitutional law of democratic nations as a fundamental pillar of a free society. Operationally, however, it is increasingly imperiled. The analysis presented in this report reveals a clear and concerning trend: the practical space for dissent is shrinking, squeezed by a convergence of restrictive legislation, militarized policing, pervasive surveillance, and the overarching securitization of public life. The gap between the legal promise of the right to protest and the reality of its exercise is widening.
To reverse this trend and reaffirm the democratic function of protest, a concerted effort is required from both states and civil society.
A Framework for States
States must realign their domestic laws and practices with their binding international human rights obligations under the UDHR and ICCPR. This requires a shift away from a paradigm of control and toward one of facilitation. Specific actions should include:
- Legislative Reform: Repeal or substantially amend vague and overbroad anti-protest laws that criminalize peaceful conduct. Definitions of offenses like “riot” or “unlawful assembly” must be narrowed to require proof of actual violence or incitement to imminent violence, and penalties must be proportionate.
- Uphold the Presumption of Peacefulness: State authorities must operate under the presumption that assemblies are peaceful. The burden of proof to justify any restriction must lie with the state and meet the strict international test of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
- De-escalation in Policing: Mandate de-escalation, communication, and negotiation as the primary strategies for protest policing. The use of militarized gear and tactics should be prohibited, and the deployment of “less-lethal” weapons must be strictly regulated and subject to independent oversight.
- Safeguard Digital Rights: Implement robust legal protections against the surveillance of protesters. This should include requiring a judicial warrant based on individualized probable cause for the use of intrusive technologies like facial recognition, geofence tracking, and cell-site simulators in the context of public assemblies.
Strategic Considerations for Civil Society
For protest to remain an effective instrument of democratic change, its practitioners must adapt to this challenging new landscape. Civil society organizations, activists, and protest movements should consider:
- Integrating Digital Security: Protester education and training must now include robust digital privacy and security practices to mitigate the risks of state surveillance.
- Strategic Litigation: Legal challenges to restrictive anti-protest laws, invasive surveillance practices, and disproportionate police actions are essential for defending civic space. Landmark court victories, such as South Africa’s Mlungwana decision, demonstrate the power of litigation to roll back repressive measures.
- Building Broad Coalitions: The defense of the right to protest cannot be the sole concern of activist groups. It requires building broad coalitions that include legal associations, academic institutions, media organizations, and the private sector to advocate for the protection of civic space as a whole.
Ultimately, the right to protest is more than just a right to express dissent; it is a right that breathes life into all other democratic rights. It is the mechanism through which societies debate their values, challenge injustice, and strive for a more perfect union. Protecting this right is not a matter of tolerating disruption but of safeguarding the very process of democratic renewal.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2025, September 3). Protesters’ Rights. ACLU.
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. (2015, January 14). When Else Can the Government Regulate the Time, Place, and Manner of Protest? ACLU of Illinois.
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (n.d.). Demonstrators and the Constitution. ACLU of Northern California.
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations. ACLU of Northern California.
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Protesters. ACLU of Southern California.
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. (2025, September 2). Freedom of Speech & The Right to Protest. ACLU of Texas.
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: A Guide for Protesters. ACLU of Washington.
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Protesters’ Rights.
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Spying on Protesters. ACLU.
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. (n.d.). Your Right to Protest. ACLU of Arizona.
American Civil Liberties Union of DC. (n.d.). How to Defend Against Police Surveillance at Protests. ACLU of DC.
Amnesty International. (n.d.). Protect the Protest.
Amnesty International. (2021, July). Turkey: Law to Prevent the Financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: A new tool to crackdown on civil society.
Amnesty International. (2024, November). Guidelines on the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly: Summary.
Amnesty International Germany. (2023, September). Protect the Protest: Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Under Pressure in Germany.
AP News. (2020, June 29). LA police fired over a thousand projectiles at protesters in a single day.
Baylor, T. (2022). Unexceptional Protest. Columbia Law School.
Bello, B. (2022). Dissent as a Safety Valve for Democracy. The RCSAS.
Bloomsbury. (n.d.). Philosophy of Protest.
Brookings Institution. (2018, April 10). The power of protest in the US.
Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat. (2025, September 3). Right of Assembly.
Cambridge University Press. (2020, June 11). Article 21: Freedom of Assembly.
Center for Constitutional Rights. (n.d.). Policing at Protests: Best Practices.
Chatterjee, S. (2017). Right to protest: Landmark decision on limits to state action. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(50), 20-21.
Columbia Law School. (2016, May 11). Civil Liberties in the Age of Counterterrorism.
Conlan, C. (2021). A Comparative Analysis of Anti-Hate Laws in Germany and the United States. Brooklyn Journal of International Law.
Constitutional Court of South Africa. (2018, November 19). Mlungwana and Others v S and Another.
Council of Europe. (n.d.). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
De Villiers, B. (2019). Comparative constitutional law and the development of international standards: A South African perspective. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe.
De Villiers, B. (2022). Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech: When Values Collide in Divided Societies. Constitutional Review, 8(2), 186-215.
Deutschland.de. (2025, May 19). Freedom of expression in Germany: law and limits.
Ding, J. (2020, June 29). LA police fired over a thousand projectiles at protesters in a single day. Associated Press.
Domestic Preparedness. (2023, March 22). Protests: Balancing First Amendment Rights and Public Safety.
D’Souza, R. (2020). Transformative Constitutionalism: A Comparative Study of United States, India and South Africa. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities.
EBSCO. (2023). Freedom of assembly and association rulings (Supreme Court).
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities.
European Parliament. (2025). Hate speech: A comparative overview of the legal frameworks in the US and the EU.
Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. (2025, September 3). Right of Assembly.
Fordham International Law Journal. (2018). Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, But Words May Also Hurt Me: A Comparison of United States and German Hate Speech Laws.
Fordham Law Review. (2022). The Anti-Riot Act of 1968: An Analysis of Its Impact on Freedom of Expression.
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). (2024, October 4). Protesting on public property: What you need to know.
Freedom Forum. (n.d.). Time, Place and Manner Restrictions.
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (n.d.). Facilitating Peaceful Protests.
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (2022). Exploring Counterterrorism Effectiveness and Human Rights Law.
German Federal Constitutional Court. (n.d.). History.
Gesetze im Internet. (n.d.). Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Hayward, N. (2018). A Short History of Activism. National Women’s History Museum.
Human Rights Watch. (2016). Stifling Dissent: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India.
Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Search results for “peaceful protests”.
Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Search results for “right to protest”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2019). Protest and Human Rights.
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. (2025, February 5). Analysis of US Anti-Protest Bills.
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. (n.d.). Freedom of Assembly in Germany.
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. (n.d.). Protesting in an Age of Government Surveillance.
Jost, J. T., et al. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Advances in Political Psychology.
Justice in Schools. (n.d.). School Walkouts as Civil Disobedience.
Levine, D. (2018). Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, But Words May Also Hurt Me: A Comparison of United States and German Hate Speech Laws. Fordham International Law Journal, 41(5), 1293-1332.
Lorant, A. (2019). That Should Not Be Protected: Rethinking the United States Position on Hate Speech. Southwestern Journal of International Law.
LSE. (n.d.). Aligning anti-terrorism laws with criminal law and human rights.
Macleod, S. (2024). Social media and campaigning: Is digital activism effective? University of Sussex.
Maduray, K. (2020). The Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993: A Critical Analysis. De Jure Law Journal.
Maguire, E., & Serpas, R. (2020, June 2). Why so many police are handling protests wrong. The Marshall Project.
Mbazira, C. (2020). Mlungwana v The State: A victory for the right to protest in South Africa. De Jure Law Journal.
McGill University. (2018). The Effects of Counterterrorist Legislation on Civil Liberties. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism.
Mehra, T. (2023). The Role of Social Media in Legal Movements. Society for Computers and Law.
Munger, K. (2017). Social media and the organization of collective action. LSE Public Policy Review.
National Constitution Center. (n.d.). Amendment I: Interpretations.
Northwestern University Law Review. (2012). Free Speech and Public Space After Occupy Wall Street.
Nyaaya. (n.d.). Guide to Lawful Protesting.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Countering Terrorism. OSCE.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Freedom of assembly and of association.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Peaceful Assembly.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2018, November). Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Article 20.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Global Study on the Impact of Counter-Terrorism Measures on Civil Society and Civic Space.
Open Society Justice Initiative. (2018, December 11). South African Activists Win a Legal Battle in Defense of the Right to Protest.
Oxford Human Rights Hub. (2024). The Right to Protest: Limiting the Right to a Class of Citizens In India.
PBS. (n.d.). Milestones Of The Civil Rights Movement.
PEN America. (n.d.). Protest and Assembly.
Pinto, D. (2022). Criminalization of Political Dissent. The University of Chicago Press Journals.
Police NRW. (n.d.). Public gatherings.
Privacy International. (n.d.). Protest Surveillance.
PULP. (n.d.). The Right to Protest in South Africa.
Rao, S. (2018). The Right to Protest: Fundamental Right or Not? HeinOnline.
Research for Change. (2024). The Double-Edged Sword of Social Media in Legal Activism.
Revolutionary Spaces. (n.d.). The Impact of Protest.
Right of Assembly.info. (n.d.). Country Profile: Germany.
Right of Assembly.info. (n.d.). The Right of Peaceful Assembly.
Samararatne, D. (2021). Comparative Constitutional Law, Colonialism and Empire (Part II). IACL-AIDC Blog.
SCC Online. (2025, September 20). Madras HC on arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors.
Schwartz, T. (2021). The Right to Protest: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law.
Seattle University School of Law. (2013). Trespass and the Right to Protest.
Siegel, D. A. (2020). How Violence Shapes Protest Dynamics. Political Science Research and Methods.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). Civil Disobedience.
Stone, G. R. (2011). The comparative constitutional law of freedom of expression. University of Hamburg.
Stoughton, S. W. (2021). Official Responses to Protest-Related Civil Unrest. William & Mary Law School.
Taylor, P. (2020). Article 21: Freedom of Assembly. In Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Cambridge University Press.
The American Bar Association. (n.d.). How the First Amendment Right to Free Speech Intersects with Democracy.
The American Archive of Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). Freedom to Assemble and Petition.
The Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration. (n.d.). The Basic Law.
The Times of India. (2024, March 29). Right to free movement, protest not absolute, rules Madras HC.
Tilly, C. (2023). The Criminalization of Political Dissent: A Socio-Legal Analysis. The University of Chicago Press Journals.
U.S. Congress. (n.d.). First Amendment: Annotations. Constitution Annotated.
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. (2021). Review of the Department of Justice’s and Department of the Interior’s Roles and Responsibilities in Responding to Protest Activity and Civil Unrest in Washington, D.C., from May 25 to June 2, 2020.
United Nations. (n.d.). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. (n.d.). Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Van Blarcum, C. D. (2021). Internet Hate Speech: A Comparative Analysis of German and U.S. Law. Brooklyn Journal of International Law.
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press.
West, T. (2024). The Right to Protest: A Comparative Analysis. Taylor & Francis Online.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Civil rights movement.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Riot control.
Woven Teaching. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 20.
Wright, S. (1966). Protest, Civil Disobedience, and the First Amendment. Indiana Law Journal, 41(3), 435-460.
