When Protests Turn Violent, How Far Should Governments Be Allowed to Go?

I've been following the protest restrictions in France over the past week.

After the violence and looting on October 17, authorities introduced curfews, banned some demonstrations, and changed the routes of others.

I get why businesses and residents want stronger protection. If your shop was damaged during a riot, being told to just tolerate it in the name of protest rights isn't much of an answer.

But I think there's an important distinction here.

Stopping people from committing violence isn't the same thing as stopping people from demonstrating.

And someone attending a peaceful march isn't automatically responsible for what another group did the previous weekend.

The details of these restrictions matter. Are they limited to specific streets and hours? Is there evidence of a credible threat? Can organizers challenge a ban before the demonstration is supposed to happen?

Apparently, courts in France have already been reviewing some of these measures, which seems like an important part of the story.

I'm not sure this is a question that can be answered by simply saying public safety matters more, or protest rights matter more.

Both matter. The difficult part is deciding what the government should actually be allowed to restrict.

When violence keeps happening around protests, should authorities be given broader powers to limit demonstrations, or should every restriction have to meet a narrow, case-by-case standard?