Can a city require protest organizers to pay for security measures like barriers, police presence, or traffic control?
At first glance, it sounds reasonable. Public safety isn’t free.
But the First Amendment places clear limits on what the government can do—and more importantly, what it can charge.
In this video, I break down the constitutional line using Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement and Cox v. New Hampshire, two key Supreme Court cases that define when protest-related fees are allowed—and when they cross the line into unconstitutional burdens on speech.
Using recent developments in Lebanon, Pennsylvania as a real-world example, this video explains:
* Why “risk-based” security costs raise serious First Amendment concerns
* The difference between permissible administrative fees and unconstitutional charges
* How shifting security costs to speakers can function as a “heckler’s veto”
* Why even well-intentioned public safety decisions can violate constitutional protections
This is a nuanced issue—but the principle is simple:
The government can manage public safety.It cannot make you pay for the risk created by your speech.
Can a city make you pay for the security your protest “requires”?
It sounds reasonable—but the Supreme Court says there’s a constitutional line. And many cities are getting dangerously close to crossing it.
