Blocking a Bridge Is Not Protected Free Speech
Cops, Courts, and Citizens Strike Back as Anti-ICE Protests Cross the Line
The recent events on the Roebling Bridge in Cincinnati, where anti-ICE protesters—including journalists—were arrested after blocking traffic, have reignited debate over the limits of free speech and protest rights in the United States. While the First Amendment protects the right to peaceful assembly and free expression, it does not grant unlimited license to block critical infrastructure like bridges.
The Legal Boundaries of the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition the government. However, courts have consistently ruled that these rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. This means that while you can protest, you cannot do so in a way that endangers public safety or disrupts essential services.
Key Precedents:
United States v. Grace (1983): The Supreme Court recognized that expressive activity in traditional public forums, like sidewalks, is strongly protected by the First Amendment, but can be subject to reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions for safety and order.
Cox v. Louisiana (1965): The Court upheld the conviction of protestors who blocked access to a courthouse, ruling that the government can regulate conduct that interferes with public order and safety.
Why Blocking a Bridge Crosses the Line…