The city of Charleston in July 2021 adopted its First Amendment Demonstration Ordinance without public comment. It requires police permission for a demonstration of 25 people or more. Violating it — or simply proceeding without a permit — is a criminal offense carrying up to $500 in fines or 30 days in jail. And that’s wrong. It violates the right to peaceably assemble as guaranteed by our founders.
Mayor William Cogswell, Police Chief Chito Walker and members of city council argue the ordinance is vital for public safety. We disagree. Charleston already has laws on the books against blocking traffic, vandalism, harassment and disorderly conduct. Those laws apply to everyone, whether they’re at a protest or a farmers market. Unfortunately, this ordinance creates a parallel enforcement system that applies only to people who are trying to exercise their First Amendment rights.
Charleston’s chief of police is the sole decision-maker. The ordinance arms him with vague standards and complete authority to deny or modify demonstration permits. Because police behavior is frequently the subject of protests, they cannot be fair arbiters of “acceptable protest.” There’s no negotiation allowed under the ordinance; the police offer a fiat instruction to conduct any protest as they’ve ordered.
For example, the city finances, maintains and patrols Marion Square, Charleston’s center of civic life. Despite its position as a quintessential public forum, police move requests for Marion Square to out-of-the-way places like Hampton Park or Brittlebank Park.
The ordinance allows the city to require a Special Events Permit “when a request is made to reserve a particular public area for use” or “when frequent requests are made for a particular public area.” They seem to apply this vague language to Marion Square. The special events process creates insurmountable time and financial barriers for everyday people simply trying to assemble and express their opinions. Denials and onerous permitting schemes have led organizers to move demonstrations out of the city entirely. That’s wrong.
Problems with the ordinance aren’t only in the permitting stage. On the day of a protest, police can revoke the permit the moment any participant allegedly violates any provision— however minor, such as standing too near a fountain, rendering the entire gathering immediately unlawful. Every attendee is then arrestable.
In October 2024, officers told demonstrators on camera that their gathering was lawful, then arrested two of them anyway. The city of Charleston apparently could not defend the arrests and the prosecutions were later dropped. But damage was done. The people were detained, cited and forced to navigate repeated delays in their criminal case. The demonstrators had to hire lawyers and endured months of stress. That’s unconscionable.
Why this violates the Constitution
America’s First Amendment doesn’t just protect comfortable speech. It protects speech that challenges authority and stirs people to anger. When the government requires advance permission before exercising fundamental rights, that’s called prior restraint, and the U.S. Constitution demands strict safeguards. Standards for approval and denial must be narrow, objective and clear— not left to a sole official’s judgment. The process must be fast enough that a decision comes before the speech becomes irrelevant. And if the government wants to stop an event, the burden must be on the government to go to court — not on the organizer to prove they deserve to be heard.
What the city should do
The city’s Public Safety Committee is currently reviewing the ordinance, and we seek a full repeal. The problem is its essence – a police-administered permission system for political speech with few objective standards, no timely review and unequal application. Peaceful protests should not carry the threat of arrest. Furthermore, our chief of police must not be the arbiter of what’s acceptable speech.
The city of Charleston’s demonstration ordinance doesn’t facilitate public safety; it only regulates protected speech and assembly. The United States Supreme Court said in 1969 that a person faced with an unconstitutional permit requirement may ignore it and exercise their constitutional rights anyway.
Charlestonians shouldn’t have to make that choice. Repeal the ordinance.
Activists Bonnie Cleaveland and Sam Carroll, both of Charleston, offered this commentary after consultation with the First Amendment Restoration Campaign of Charleston Democratic Socialists of America, Everyday People, 50501 Charleston, Indivisible Charleston and the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
