The United States Supreme Court has explained that speech made in public may be restricted by 'time, place, and manner restrictions'. These restrictions cannot be based on the actual content or message of the speech. Rather, the restrictions must be narrowly focused to serve a significant government interest and restrictions must leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

For example, if your message incites imminent violence, your message can be censored or you could be arrested for inciting violence (causing a fight by using 'fighting words' for instance). Because protecting public health and safety is a significant role the governmental must play, demonstrations that may turn violent may be prohibited because of the danger to public safety.

Similarly, because the proper functioning of government is so important, our right to petition on government property can be restricted so that government workers can do their jobs without interruption or distraction. That is why we may petition in parks and on streets, but we may not petition inside government buildings, distracting government workers from doing their jobs.

If you violate a restriction on speech or petition of the government, you can be arrested and punished for doing so.

One landmark US Supreme Court case in the 1970s, commonly called the 'Skokie' case, revolved around the right of a group of Neo-Nazis to demonstrate in the small town of Skokie, Illinois. Skokie was the home to many Holocaust survivors who passed laws in their city banning the Neo-Nazis from demonstrating, due to the fact that it would intimidate them and hamper their personal liberty. The US Supreme court decided that the Neo-Nazi's right to demonstrate in Skokie could not be restricted based on the fact that their message was one of hate and intimidation. The City of Skokie could still pass laws requiring the demonstration to follow certain rules, but those rules could not constrain the message of the demonstration.