You are seriously misinformed.
You can say I’m misinformed, but that doesn’t make it true.
Yours is a prescription for chaos, and *stifles* speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this freedom in the 1937 case De Jonge v. State of Oregon, writing that "the right to peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental." According to the Court the right to assemble is "one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions."
* * *
The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Then on what basis are police called to haul off protesters when they become so harrassing that the person cannot speak and the rally cannot continue?
On what basis can cities require permits for protesters and draw up “no protest” zones for certain events?
I would be careful telling others that they are “seriously misinformed.”
The First Amendment right to speak is not absolute, nor is any other constitutional right.
And, besides, this is not about what is legal or constitutional. It’s about what is helpful or beneficial to the pro-life cause. I’m sure you have some teaching somewhere that just because something is “allowed,” that does not mean it is good to do it.
To everyone involved. Wagglebee is correct.
The poster is misinformed.