> If the protests are peaceful, the government should not shut them down. But at what point do the economic impacts of a protest cross a line such that they are

> If the protests are peaceful, the government should not shut them down. But at what point do the economic impacts of a protest cross a line such that they aren’t peaceful? If it's not violent, it's peaceful. Perhaps you're trying to redefine "peaceful" because you've come to the realisation that it's sometimes legitimate to shut down peaceful protests? If someone parks their vehicle blocking the street as a protest or makes noise day and night, that's clearly nonviolent. If the state wants the protesters moved on, why can't they apply parking law or nuisance noise law? Every protest has economic impacts, that doesn't mean it's not peaceful. I boycott Nestle in the privacy of my own home, which I hope will have a negative economic impact on them. Giving government the power to stop protests because they have economic impact would give the government the power to stop all protests.