The Line Between Liberty and Lawlessness: The Constitutional Limits of Protest in Texas and Beyond
AustinLiberator
By David Crockett | Editor-in-Chief, The Austin Liberator
In a free republic, the right to speak one's mind and peaceably assemble is sacrosanct — enshrined in the very first words of our Bill of Rights. Yet like all liberty, it is not license. The First Amendment is a shield for speech, not a sword for chaos. And today, across Texas and America, the line between protest and pandemonium is being tested — in courtrooms, on campuses, and in the streets.
Let us draw that line plainly. Let us apply the law as the Constitution commands. And let us do so not with partisan fury, but with the cool clarity of principle.
📍 I. University of Texas – The Pro-Palestinian Protests
The University of Texas at Austin, like many public universities, is a designated public forum — a place where students may speak, assemble, and advocate for causes, including deeply controversial ones. Whether pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the Constitution does not pick sides in politics. It protects peaceable expression, so long as it does not disrupt essential operations or threaten public safety.
When UT students gathered this spring to criticize Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, they stood well within their rights — until those protests crossed into trespass, classroom disruption, and the blockage of university property. Under Tinker v. Des Moines, students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” but they may not materially disrupt the function of the institution.
The university, acting under Texas law, had every right to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions — as long as they were content-neutral. Refusing to vacate after lawful warnings or trespassing into unauthorized buildings is not protected assembly; it is civil disobedience. And under Cox v. Louisiana and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, such actions may be lawfully curtailed.
Conclusion: Chant in the quad? Constitutionally protected. Occupy academic buildings, block ingress, or defy dispersal orders? The law permits consequences. Liberty ends where lawlessness begins.
🔥 II. Austin – The Black Lives Matter Protests
In the summer of 2020, Austin became one of many American cities swept into protest after the killing of George Floyd. Thousands took to the streets under the banner of justice — and their right to do so was fundamental. Marching, chanting, and calling for reform in a public park or on a sidewalk is core First Amendment expression. So long as it remained peaceable, it was protected.
But when those gatherings erupted into property destruction, looting, and violence, they lost the cloak of constitutional protection. The First Amendment does not shield criminal acts. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes a true threat is not protected.
In Austin, when protestors shattered windows, set fires, or hurled projectiles at police, the government had a compelling interest to step in. The right to protest does not include the right to destroy or endanger.
Conclusion: The cause of racial justice deserves a hearing. But violence in its name — like violence in any name — forfeits the First Amendment’s protection.
⚠️ III. Los Angeles – The Current Violent Protests
In recent weeks, the streets of Los Angeles have again been overtaken — not by protest, but by mayhem. Organized mobs have looted stores, attacked bystanders, set fires, and called it "activism." It is nothing of the sort.
The Constitution does not protect mobs. It does not defend arsonists, looters, or those who throw bricks through windows in the name of social justice or political rage. This is not civil disobedience. This is criminal conduct. It is not speech. It is anarchy.
The Supreme Court has long held, in cases like Feiner v. New York and Grayned v. Rockford, that when speech turns into an immediate threat to public order or safety, it may be lawfully suppressed. No protest — left or right — is entitled to violent expression. The First Amendment ends when fists fly and fires start.
Conclusion: Los Angeles is not witnessing civil protest. It is witnessing uncivil rebellion. The Constitution condemns it, and the rule of law must restore order.
🏛️ Closing Thoughts: The Republic Needs Boundaries
If America is to remain free, it must remain lawful. Protest is a mighty tool of democracy — but only when wielded within the bounds of peace. We must defend with equal vigor the right to speak unpopular truths, and the right of society to protect itself from violence masquerading as justice.
As Justice Jackson once warned, the Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” It is a charter for ordered liberty — for freedom rooted in the rule of law.
Let the students march. Let the citizens chant. Let the people assemble. But when the flame of protest becomes a wildfire of violence, the republic has both the right and the duty to say: enough.
David Crockett is a constitutional law & tax attorney, political writer, and Editor-in-Chief of The Austin Liberator. He hails from a proud lineage of frontiersmen, freedom fighters, and firebrands—and writes in defense of law, liberty, and the American soul.