Abstract
Protest policing is increasingly characterized by an escalation in the use of preventive measures, reflected in the global diffusion of a cluster of tactics that are geared toward enhancing police control over protest. This paper presents an interpretation of the right to protest that includes a moral claim against such efforts at prevention, while also envisaging a number of circumstances where such a claim might be legitimately overridden. It goes on to contend that, even in such circumstances, the preventive tactics employed by police must satisfy stringent tests of proportionality, liability, and necessity. The paper concludes by calling for a return to a reformulated version of the so-called “negotiated management” approach that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s.
