Know your rights: protest, dissent, and the line the law draws

Streets, sidewalks, and parks are "traditional public forums" where speech gets the strongest protection. The government may impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g., permit requirements for large marches, noise limits) but may not restrict speech because of its message. Content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny.

The government cannot ban your sign, chant, or symbol because it is offensive, hateful, unpatriotic, or disagreeable (Texas v. Johnson; Snyder v. Phelps). Hostility from onlookers (a "heckler's veto") is generally not a lawful reason to shut down a peaceful speaker.

You may call for radical change, denounce the government, and even argue that violence may sometime be justified. You cross the line only if your speech is directed to and likely to produce IMMINENT lawless action (Brandenburg), or is a true threat you make with at least reckless disregard that it will be taken as a threat of violence (Counterman).

Most federal appellate courts to reach the question have held there is a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public, subject to reasonable time/place/manner limits. This is circuit-dependent and still developing — it is not uniform nationwide.

The freedom to associate and, in many contexts, to speak anonymously is protected (NAACP v. Alabama). Compelled disclosure of who you organize with can itself be an unconstitutional chilling of association.

The First Amendment protects your speech; it does not license trespass, violence, blocking traffic without a permit, or destruction of property. "I have free speech" is not a defense to an independent crime committed while speaking. That is the same category error the sedition and sovereign-citizen material warns about.