Why had the supreme court upheld laws That require advance notice and permits for protests in public places?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court has upheld laws that require advance notice and permits for protests in public places to balance the rights of free speech and assembly with the need to maintain public order and safety. These requirements help authorities in planning and allocating resources appropriately for public demonstrations. The Court has considered such regulations to be constitutional as long as they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and provide alternative avenues for expression.

Answer 2

<p>This is only a guess, but don't you think it's okay for the government to want to make sure that the group's right to protest is not overriding another group's right to access public services? Free speech is a right and if you're speaking alone I doubt they'd ever require a permit, but when the expression requires potentially disrupting rights for others it is subject to scrutiny and it's reasonable for the city to want to have advance notice so they can accommodate "other" people. That seems legitimate to me. With certain protests not too long ago involving people actually trying to build property on spaces that are for everybody and claiming that it's in their right to free speech to do so...you can see why they want to do a double-check. You could read the Supreme Court majority opinions for those cases, too, to find out the details as that's just a very rough guess (although given what I know of the issue I have a feeling that's the gist of what they said).<p>

Those laws aren't out to shut up people, in any case. And if they are legitimately used to shut up people the Supreme Court should and would find that *particular application* of that constitutional law unconstitutional.