Community Q&A: What is your stance on downtown protests, balancing business concerns with residents’ rights?
At our Turn Up the Volume Woodstock Town Hall on September 17, a resident asked:
Q: What is your stance on downtown protests, balancing business concerns with residents’ rights?
A:
The foundation of my answer is simple: the First Amendment protects the right to protest. Period. That right doesn’t depend on whether we like what’s being said, or whether it’s convenient for businesses or city officials. If government starts picking and choosing which viewpoints are allowed, then no one’s rights are secure.
Of course, protests can create disruptions. Streets may be blocked for a short time, and nearby businesses may feel an impact. Those are real concerns, and the city has to manage them. But the Constitution is clear: any rules must be reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions — not blanket bans or vague permit systems.
That’s where Woodstock’s law goes too far. Our city code currently requires a permit for “any parade, procession, or public demonstration on the streets or sidewalks,” with violations punishable by fines or jail. It even gives the city manager authority to deny permits based on “public convenience” or “morals.” That’s not a criticism of city staff — it’s a legal problem. Courts around the country have struck down similar language as unconstitutional because it’s too vague and too broad. Woodstock deserves better — rules that protect safety and fairness without putting free speech at risk.
At the same time, the city should work with police to make sure protests stay peaceful and safe — protecting both demonstrators and nearby businesses without shutting down free expression. And I don’t dismiss the fact that even a short disruption can hurt a café or shop running on razor-thin margins. The city should be a partner in helping businesses prepare — with clear communication, signage, and even coordinated events that draw customers in rather than push them away. Protecting free speech doesn’t mean ignoring business concerns; it means addressing them in ways that don’t trample constitutional rights.
Here’s how I’d approach this balance:
Protect safety, not silence. Work with police to ensure emergency vehicles can get through and that protests remain peaceful. Safety is the goal, not shutting people down.
Make the rules clear and narrow. Keep basic permitting for large-scale street closures, but remove vague language that chills free speech for small groups.
Respect businesses without curbing rights. Coordinate with downtown businesses so they know what to expect, but recognize that inconvenience is not the same as harm.
Handle counter-protests fairly. Both sides have rights. That means ensuring protesters and counter-protesters can assemble without either side blocking access to businesses or threatening safety.
The bigger picture is this: if the city creates more transparency and real avenues for residents to be heard, people may not feel the same urgency to protest. But when they do, their rights must be respected.
Free speech isn’t negotiable. In Woodstock, we need rules that protect safety and fairness — not rules that silence people under the excuse of convenience.
