No Stupid Questions

The city will pretty much grant all permits

Yes, and they have to, because of your free speech.

so it's more of a polite agreement in most cases

No, it is meant for serious. If there are cases where they don't give a permit, they need to have very serious reason.

(For example, if the place where you want to go is very inappropriate, the would tell you to choose a different place)

But there is more: you asking for the permit is important in itself, so the administration can take the needed action for public order, e.g traffic regulation etc. So you have to tell them where you want to do it and how many people you expect to participate.

And when you want to demonstrate about controversial topics, they have to send even more police there for your safety. At least in my country that is legally required. The police helps to protect your right of free speech.

You're giving the government a tool they could expand later to oppress you further

I don't know why you think so. That would be a state without free speech then.

My understanding is that the permits essentially allow you to disrupt things like traffic by having sections of the city cordoned off for gathering/marching. Take this with a grain of salt, as I've never had to actually deal with the permitting myself.

There's no such thing as free speech as an absolute in practice.

For example patents, IP, defamation laws, copyright, state secrets, sealed courts, false advertising laws, all these things create limits to speech in the US.

It's a matter of when and where.

A protest isn't inherently able to be made anywhere any time. Public property is shared property, so in order for one group to use that to the exclusion of others takes planning. On private property, nobody is obligated to allow you there at all, and not all universities are public.

The street you block in protest isn't your street, it's our street, so you have no more or less rights to it than I do. A permit, in theory, is just a fancy way to make sure that anyone else that would be using that place can have alternatives. Traffic being rerouted, etc.

There are also health and safety issues like overloading bleachers being a risk, or a space not being able to be evacuated in an emergency because of too many people.

You're right, if permits are not granted equally, it's a huge problem, and abuses can occur. They do occur. But as long as the entity (be it a government or a university or business) isn't placing undue obstacles, grants permits equally, and everything is done without corruption (bribes or such), that's how the most basic peaceful protest has to work.

This isn't saying that there can't be other forms of protest. There are many forms available. But a simple awareness protest? It needs to be peaceful, cooperative, and only marginally inconvenient. Remember, that kind of protest is about awareness, of making sure people know and possibly gaining support. It's a flies with honey vs vinegar.

Now, illegal protests, disruptive protests, and even violent protests have their place too. As do rallies, which can be seen as a type of protest, but isn't really the same imo. But you have to choose when and where to apply those tools effectively. Some protests, the entire point is to cause disruption, get arrested, and use that as a tool to achieve a goal. But a cooperative legal protest can do things that type can't.

Remember, the right to free speech does not guarantee you can exercise it everywhere. Your right to free speech ends at your neighbor's door, so to speak. You can say what you like, but she doesn't have to let you say it on her porch. You can be asked to leave, and should you refuse, be removed after some hoop jumping along the way (which varies by state and municipality).

A public space like a street is the same basic thing. You have a right to use it, and so does everyone else. Your freedom and their freedom may come into conflict. Having some kind of system for resolving that issue is necessary. Permits work for parades, parties, and protests.

Even with the kind of anarchy that most people identifying as anarchists espouse, there's a social contract involved in that kind of thing. It's only a matter of the mechanism involved.

Besides, there's always been limits on speech. Collectively, there's an understanding that there are limits where, when, and how they can be expressed. The whole "fire in a theater" trope is an example. There's "fighting words" laws on the books. The only question is what any given social structure has decided those limits are.

Generally, whether it works correctly or not, representative democracy promises that the limits are agreed on via those we elect to do so. That has flaws of course, but that's the US on a simplistic level. We've all agreed to the limits in one way or another, or can choose to try and change those limits (or the social structure itself).

But if that slippery slope slides too far, well, that's when protests become revolution, in theory. Assuming enough people agree and work together. It doesn't seem to happen very often, but that's the ultimate safeguard against a democracy failing.

I'm not gonna say things are in a good place in the USA re protesting and speech.

But the permit is to assemble, and essentially temporarily hold a public space. Not to speak. You as an individual can go to a city park right now and start discussing any topic you like.

I'm not advocating anything here, just describing the permit.

Free speech is merely an ill-defined right to speak without consequence from the government, not the right to a podium wherever you choose.

1. A protest isn't just a speech - it's an act. It's an act of blocking a street, occupying a square, crowding or obstructing a neighborhood etc.
2. In democratic countries, a permit isn't an ask for permission, but more like a notification. Like you say youself: all permits are approved. But you are warning the city that a protest is going to happen here and there.

“Free speech” is very much misunderstood as a form of carte blanche as your example demonstrates. It’s written as “Congress shall make no law…” etc., implying you’re protected only from the federal government, but as time and court cases and legal discourse have shown, there are limits and implications for lower legislatures to model from. The classic hypothetical example is “yelling fire in a crowded theater.” Can you? Yes. Should you? Unless there’s a fire, no, then it could cause panic and injury, and you’d be responsible. That sort of thing. (The US loves a lawsuit).

Tl;dr to answer your question: no.

Two important concepts:

1. The First Amendment allows government to impose "time, place, and manner" restrictions on protected speech. So if you give a speech protected by the First Amendment, the government can still regulate your use of sound amplification, including things like regulating noise levels at night or in residential areas. If you assemble in an assembly protected by the First Amendment, the government may still enforce fire code restrictions like occupancy limits in a building or weight limits on a platform, or even permitting requirements for all of the above.
2. The First Amendment also distinguishes between public forum, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. The government must allow people to use things like theaters and stages for First Amendment speech and expression, but doesn't have to do things like let protestors onto restricted military bases to protest.

Permitting is one way to regulate time, place, and manner. Also, it's a way to prevent double booking. A city-run community theater might allow for one church to hold services on Sunday, and a first come first serve policy might cause the city to deny access to another church that wants to use the exact same place at the exact same time.

So a specific lawn on a public university campus might require permitting in a way that complies with the First Amendment, if the permitting is used to:

• Prevent overcrowding beyond safe limits
• Prevent excessive wear and tear on the grass/landscaping
• Prevent multiple groups holding incompatible activities in the same space
• Prevent interference with actual governmental functions (e.g., not disrupting classes being held)
• Keep the First Amendment protected activity within the actual zones where that is permitted

People can and do engage in First Amendment protected activity outside of those lines, of course. Sometimes the point of a protest is to break the law: civil rights sit ins, marches on specific streets, etc. But the organizers and the governmental authority generally need to work at defining those lines clearly, so that any decision to break the law is conscious and planned.

I imagine the surveillance and data collection about protestors is a bigger infringement on free speech

Yeah, I'm with most everyone else here. I manage the scheduling on a small college campus, and the students are welcome to protest or bring awareness to whatever they like, but they can't be interrupting classes or other planned activities.

As more of conceptual response of why this is generally practiced and legal under our system of governance: an individual’s freedom of speech is not the express demand that everyone else must or need listen to said speech.

Yes.

Sure. As long as they grant you the permit, they've granted you the right to free speech. And I suppose that's also why they're almost never declined.