A function of free speech is to invite dispute and may best serve its high purpose when it induces unrest or stirs people to anger. Great judges have made this observation over the years. It goes without saying that people may dissent, criticize, disapprove, oppose and challenge. They may do it in small groups or mass opposition and they must be able to do it vigorously and effectively. Democracies should and must make certain that facilities and protection where necessary are provided for these activities.
Dissenters have to be given an opportunity to gather support for their point of view.
But the line between the permissible and the forbidden for protesters and change-seekers is clear. That line cannot be blurred by a French farmer or Maude Barlow, head of the so-called Council of Canadians, who condone illegal activities and make fatuous arguments that vandalism is not violence. Damage to persons or property is intolerable, illegal violence. Any mass demonstration, even though it may be the most effective constitutional tool of dissent, must be kept within the limits of its permissible purpose. But these functions of mass demonstration do not include terrorism, disorder, looting or vandalism.