The right to protest is the cornerstone of democracy and cannot be curtailed.
I argue that the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy and it cannot be curtailed with the exceptions of national medical or security emergencies. The reasons underlying my argument are that protests (in idea) align with fundamental democratic principles and that protests (in practice) are the most accessible and logical means of expressing political disapproval. Democracies are governments of, by and for the people (Lincoln). We, the people, are characterised in our ability of think independently, expressing our ideas and acting toward our best interest. To curtail our ability to protect against what we find unfavourable would be to begin decimating our human spirit. For this essay, I define the right to protest only for unarmed and peaceful protests, physically or via means of mass communication. My argument is set in context of democracies which do not permit mass public ownership of arms, such as the India, the United Kingdom or France.
First, the right to protest is a crucial subset of democratic principles. Democracies are built on the pillars of social justice, accountable governments prevented from abusing power and free, independent political participation of the individual. In addition to suo moto recognition by a democracy's judiciary, the primary checks and balances of government activity are reflected in a citizens right to protest. This makes the right crucial. The right to protest, when deconstructed, presents mere extensions of the right to freedom of speech, the right to free (domestic) movement and peaceful assembly as well as the right to constitutional remedies, all of which are undeniably democratic principles. These rights are reflected (in spirit, if not in verbatim) not only in the constitutions of most democracies but also in international law that democracies prescribe to (such as the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN Charter of Rights) and are seen historically (Rights of Man and Citizen, French revolution). Democracies without the right to protest can be challenging to distinguish from totalitarian dictatorial dystopias as seen in 1984, by Orwell.
Second, having established the need to have protest in idea, I establish the need to have protest in action. A citizen may express disapproval with government policy in three ways. Writing to local representatives is not likely to be effective in the short term and is not guaranteed to bring any change. Suing the government in a court of law is slow, tedious, very expensive and unlikely to yield any change if the judges hold a bias. The only means accessible to the common man, yet significantly effective in the short and long run, is that of public protest (it is free, instant and simple). Not only is the magnitude of a protest representative of its importance (for authorities to judge), it is the best means of communicating the protest's message with the public. As such, curtailing the right to protest would be against the best interests of a democratic nation.
I would concede that the right to protest may need to be curtailed under certain extreme circumstances. These include a nation-wide medical emergencies (such as raging contagious pandemics), circumstances where there is an immediate risk to the lives of citizens protesting (potential terrorist threat, proven with evidence to a court) and of course if protests are obstructing emergency services (i.e. protestors may be forced to make way for occupied ambulances of police vehicles).
What makes us human is the ability of think independently, expressing our ideas and acting toward our best interest. When presented with unfavourable circumstances, it is kindled in the human spirit to seek change. To curtail our ability to protect against what we find unfavourable would be to kill the human spirit.