Public Protest and Civil Unrest

Abstract

Governments and officials must respond to protest-related civil unrest. How they do so is both an index of official respect for dissent and a measure of how committed governments are to democratic accountability. This Article examines official responses to civil unrest in connection with several recent high-profile demonstrations. In general, it concludes that governments and officials have relied on aggressive and increasingly draconian measures to quell protest-related civil unrest. Among other things, they have invoked emergency powers and used aggressive protest policing methods; dispatched federal agency personnel and threatened to deploy military forces to police demonstrations; enacted successive waves of laws that broaden riot offenses, increase penalties for minor offenses and acts of civil disobedience, and restrict campus protest; and charged protesters with domestic terrorism and racketeering. Officials have an obligation to maintain public order and safety. However, the recent pattern constitutes troubling evidence of democratic backsliding. Both contemporaneous and subsequent responses to protest-related civil unrest jeopardize even lawful public protest, disproportionately punish acts of civil disobedience, and imperil a long tradition of campus activism. In response, the Article offers a broad reform agenda that includes demystifying the government's emergency powers, de-escalating protest policing, de-federalizing responses to local unrest, considering the proportionality of charges and sanctions for protest-related offenses, preserving campus protest, and ensuring neutral and consistent responses to protest-related civil unrest.

Keywords: protest, speech, assembly, civil unrest, first amendment, assembly, demonstration