The Charter does not grant people the right to set up occupations.
Again, I'm not arguing for unlimited protests, I'm simply expressing skepticism that people are consistently applying their standards for "protests that aren't okay and we should get the cops to crack down on". Based on your responses it seems like you agree that some level of illegality should be allowed, but draw the line at "a day or three". Was this arrived at a principled way? How do you feel about the following protests, which probably lasted more than that?
* Cop City protests in Georgia
* George Floyd protests in the Minneapolis area
* Capitol Hill Occupied Protest
* Hong Kong protests
* Occupy Wall St
* 1989 Tiananmen Square protests
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650
Effective and non-effective tactics—as determined by the historical record of >600 movements over the last 120 years—are discussed, as are all of the above events.
In other words, they should have kept their protests within free speech zones? Note, my previous comment wasn't arguing for whether their actions were illegal or not, it was to ask whether people would hold up their standards to protests for their preferred side.