Do you believe in peaceful protest and negotiation or is violence simply a necessity? In 200-300 words, write a rebuttal for either the Point or Counterpoint essay.

A person's right to air grievances without fear of retribution or censorship is fundamental to democracy in the United States.

Free expression of one's beliefs is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which generally protects free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

Protesting -- the time-honored practice of publicly speaking out against perceived injustices and urging action -- is a form of assembly and thus protected by the Constitution. But while there is a right to peaceful protest in the U.S., "peaceful" being the operative word, there are limits.

This article will help you better understand your constitutional right to peacefully protest; regulation of the time, place, and manner of peaceful protests; so-called free speech zones; and more.

The Right to Peaceful Protest: What the Constitution Says

Just one sentence comprises the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting people the right to various forms of free expression.

In addition to freedom of speech, religious expression, and the press, the amendment prohibits Congress from "prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, dissent in the American colonies was harshly punished by the British monarchy prior to independence, often through violent means.

But this right, as with other constitutional rights, is not absolute.

A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham), arising from the Civil Rights movement, both protected the right to protest and allowed certain limited restrictions. One of the Court's holdings is that any licensing requirement for "free expression in publicly owned places" is unconstitutional if it's not narrowly defined and objectively applied.

Specifically, that decision overturned an ordinance in Birmingham, Alabama prohibiting parades and assemblies (including protests) on city streets without a permit. The Court found that permit requests were denied specifically to suppress speech, not to control traffic as the law was intended.

But this decision also had the effect of allowing cities and other jurisdictions to deny permits as long as they have a compelling, objective reason to do so.

Peaceful Protests: Regulation of Time, Place, and Manner

While governments may not deny a person's constitutional right to peacefully protest, they may regulate the time, place, and manner in which the protest is conducted. This standard was further established by a 1989 Supreme Court decision (Ward v. Rock Against Racism), a case challenging the constitutionality of New York City's noise ordinance as applied to Rock Against Racism's concerts in Central Park.

In the Ward decision, the Court held that the noise-related restrictions are constitutional as long as any restriction of time, place, and/or manner

The Court also has held that requiring a permit for a peaceful protest in advance is constitutional, as are additional requirements for assemblies conducted near major public events. For instance, a city may require protest organizers to provide details about how the protest will be conducted.

One important exception to the permitting requirement, however, is when protestors gather in response to breaking news. For example, protests immediately following the 2014 police shooting of an unarmed, black teenager in Ferguson, Mo. did not require a permit.

the quote is an insult because you don't say clumsy living that moves

you need to include the text. we have no idea what you are referring to