You're right! I could definitely have been more specific. The article cited in the comment I responded to claimed that a person characterized as arrested for p

You're right! I could definitely have been more specific. The article cited in the comment I responded to claimed that a person characterized as arrested for political views was arrested for blocking a public right-of-way. The primary reason I did not list this above is because it functions as an open invitation to endlessly debate if the public right-of-way was blocked or not, how relevant or legal related laws are, and so on. That would have been, in my opinion, not a useful, interesting, or substantive discussion. Almost every party involved would have attended having already decided what was true and ready to argue it forever. So I skipped it in favor of a more subtle point - restrictions are both allowed and accepted.