At the end of 2023, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis introduced the Safe and Open Streets Act into the U.S. Senate, which would make protesting by blocking roads illegal. This bill is a ridiculous and vague response to protesters and may very well put a restriction on free speech.

The bill, which is only three pages, outlines that “It shall be unlawful to, in any way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway, or to attempt or conspire so to do.” 

It says the punishment for doing so is a fine — no range of cost was provided — or imprisonment for no more than five years. Or both. If this bill is enacted, protesting by blocking roads would be considered a federal crime. Furthermore, the bill does not outline under what instances this would be a crime, only under “interference.”

Typically, though not always, protests that take place in the streets are planned ahead of time with the city government. Additionally, the point of many protests is to interfere with the daily lives of citizens to convey a pertinent message. 

Limiting the ability of protesters in this way is a very specific means of ensuring protests would be city-approved moving forward. This becomes especially problematic if the citizens of a city want to protest their local government.

While interference legally refers to “wrongful conduct that prevents or disturbs another in the performance of their usual activities,” it is not typically used in reference to protesting, meaning the doors of interpretation may be swung wide open.

Restrictions on freedom of speech are not unheard of, though they usually take the form of time, place and manner restrictions. These restrictions limit freedom of speech typically for the sake of either safety or to prevent disruptions to daily life. Threats of violence and noise restrictions would be examples of this.

While this bill would function as a time, place and manner restriction, it would be at the federal level. These restrictions are typically made at the state and city level so they can be tailored to the community as needed.

The Open and Safe Streets act was introduced in response to Durham residents blocking the Durham Freeway in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict. The city of Durham chose not to involve police until citizens crowded the City Council Chambers — Tillis, however, did not agree with the city’s handling, specifically citing the city on his website.

On Tillis’ website he is quoted as saying, “The emerging tactic of radical protestors blocking roads and stopping commerce is not only obnoxious to innocent commuters, but it’s also dangerous and will eventually get people killed. It needs to be a crime throughout the country.”

The notion of blocking roads being an “emerging tactic of radical protesters” is historically untrue. Famously, Martin Luther King Jr.’s protest in Selma, Alabama blocked traffic and a similar case was filed in a district court. Similarly, Durham itself has a history of protesting by blocking roads to fight racism.

And while the issue these protesters were marching for wasn’t fighting U.S. racism, but rather in support of Palestine, the content of what they were saying shouldn’t legally matter.

The U.S. government is expected to be content neutral in its time, place and manner restrictions, meaning lawmakers cannot pass and create laws to punish only pro-Palestine protesters, or any other causes they view as “radical.” 

While the language of the bill itself is content neutral, Tillis and Marsha Blackburn — the other senator behind this bill — have been very outspoken about why this bill exists. Blackburn said, “the Safe and Open Streets Act is critical to stopping this reckless behavior, particularly by Hamas sympathizers, in our U.S. cities.”

The vague nature of this bill and Tillis’ attempt to spite the Durham government, if successful, may undermine the entire country’s ability to protest. Blocking traffic has always been a means of getting the government’s attention and making citizen voices known, and Tillis trying to end that is a pathetic attempt at silencing his constituents.