By Linda Stamato

The Trump administration is none too happy about the right to speak and assemble peaceably — and, particularly, to protest — as we saw when the president found fault with the hundreds of thousands of women —and men — who marched on the National Mall following his election, not to mention the scientists who demonstrated in defense of science some months later.

Protests are likely to continue and intensify in the days ahead what with the release of the National Climate Assessment report and the intransigent resistance to acknowledging human factors in climate change by the Trump administration. That’s without considering the likely ending, soon, of the Robert Mueller investigation into Russia meddling with our election and what may occur in the wake of its findings.

It’s hardly surprising, then, to learn that the National Park Service has surfaced a proposal that would effectively suppress protest on the Mall. This is the space where public protest is especially robust given that D.C. is the seat of federal power, and, as Allen Dickerson, Legal Director of the Institute for Free Speech, observes: “It is the stage upon which Americans have long exercised their rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, to freely assemble and petition their representative government.”

Indeed, this is the very space where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I have a dream" speech in 1963. The Mall is also the place where some 700-plus demonstrations took place last year including one that fell far short of the expectations of its white nationalist sponsors: the Unite the Right March.

The Park Service proposal has a Trump twist: it would limit access to demonstrate in this space to those who can pay for the privilege! Citizens would have to pay to exercise their First Amendment rights to speech and peaceable assembly on the very property that they own. The people, after all, do own public space.

The Park's proposed regulation, citing costs, would curtail demonstrations on the Mall and other staging grounds for protests in Washington, including Lafayette Square across from the White House and the Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalks in front of the Trump International Hotel. The period for comments on the rule ended in October so final rules could surface any day now. Access to comments can be found here at this link.

Park Service rules governing rallies and marches have been forged through decades of court cases, including lawsuits that successfully challenged various government restrictions. The new proposal would rewrite many of those rules, and, if enacted, would face certain litigation. So, why do it?

One reason may well be that the president believes that "it's embarrassing for the country to allow protesters." Seriously.

Our Founding Fathers worried about government crushing dissent and preventing protest against its actions. So we have been protecting free access to our public spaces as a matter of law and tradition. Until now, that is.

The Park Service's proposed rule changes would allow Trump to follow the lead of tyrants throughout history, and, regrettably, many who are in positions of power today.

The first order of business for dictatorships, observes Danish architect, planner and author, Jan Gehl, is to prevent people from meeting:

"Entrenched political interests and undemocratic forces find public spaces loathsome, and, accordingly, their agents seek to exercise strict control of them in order to limit popular assembly."

The leaders of Bahrain, for example, turned what used to be a huge public square into a traffic roundabout in order to prevent people from gathering there during the "Arab Spring" uprisings. And, in Turkey, Taksim Gezi Park and Square in Istanbul, is in the cross-hairs of a government "transformation plan" to deprive citizens of a place to gather.

Who can forget the student-led pro-democracy uprising and the massacre that took place in Tianamen Square in Beijing, China? The name of the square has become a rallying cry for democracy.

Spain offers a compelling contrast. When Barcelona emerged from the Franco dictatorship, in 1975, city officials created public squares, where people could meet and talk, as a sign that democracy had returned.

Public spaces are safe places, where people can have their say, where matters of public importance can be discussed, where public opinion can be formed, and, yes, where people can join together to protest. These are cherished, essential spaces that make and sustain community.

But the Trump administration is seeking to provide access to only those groups that can afford to occupy the nation’s staging spaces. This policy, if implemented, would not only amount to the sale of a public asset, it’s an action that may violate the U.S. Constitution. And, it flies in the face of history and tradition, and, in short, the needs of a democratic people.

Protecting public spaces and allowing full access to them reflects the community’s commitment to democracy. These spaces must remain free to those who wish to protest no matter what the message. That’s the American way.

Linda Stamato, a regular Star-Ledger contributor, is co-director of the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy of Rutgers University.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.