[patrickm129]

I completely agree.

The New Jersey statute itself is arguably vague with respect to what constitutes "risk" and an intent to cause harm. Such arbitrary laws give law enforcement and prosecutors significant discretion and open the door for abuse to such an extent that I could see this being used to violate peoples' First Amendment rights. Another unconstitutional law out of New Jersey, color me shocked. :o

The public should be able to hold peaceful protests and hold public officials accountable.

[MattGaiser]

> The public should be able to hold peaceful protests and hold public officials accountable.

That should not extend to people's private homes. You want to protest a public official, go protest at their office.

[patrickm129]

Why shouldn't the public be allowed to protest on the sidewalks outside of public official's homes?

[rootsudo]

Because it's just rude, and someones work life does not exactly correlate with who they are in their professional life.

Why drag their family, the neighborhood into it?

[MattGaiser]

The only reason to do it at a home instead of at the courthouse/legislature/office is harassment.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Because unlike the most influential private individuals, they live in homes with sidewalks - not large gated compounds with their own security details, both designed to make sure the public don't get any chance whatsoever to protest.

Or is that somehow different? If they're politically influential - why, exactly?

[AnimalMuppet]

Practically, it would mean that you'd have to have a police presence there, wouldn't it? Or are you going to assume that the mob will always play nice, and never decide to storm the house?