These protesters can be so aggravating.

An example: A teenager started taunting a cop guarding a building on State Street, in downtown Boston. Annoyed, the beleaguered cop lightly cuffed the kid on the ear. A short while later, the kid returned with a bunch of his friends. Things escalated quickly. The kids -most of them college-age or close to it - started screaming and yelling, trashing the government, its policies and its leaders. The cop called for reinforcements. By nightfall, the crowd, liquored-up and angry, had grown to over 400. Streets were blocked, traffic snarled, business was at a standstill.

Just the kind of stuff, I imagine, that also would aggravate state Sen. Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow). Lees, saying he is ``sick of protesters who believe they are above the law,'' has proposed fining them for blocking traffic. He also wants to make them pay for the costs of additional security. And Lees makes it clear at whom he targets his ire: ``It is only those who do not support our troops who are going out and laying down in the middle of roads,'' he claims.

In saying that, it may seem Lees is just another in a long line of politicians who seek to silence those with whom they disagree. But there is a twist to his proposal. He's not saying that people can't object to government policy. He's simply saying that when they do so, they should be polite. Make your case, but don't be antagonistic.

There're probably many Bostonians who share his sentiments. So do a number of legislators, including Democrats, who note that in tough economic times the government needs to look for revenue anywhere it can.

After all, why should protesters be allowed to impose costs - extra police, blocked traffic and so on - on others who don't share their views? When the framers of the First Amendment wrote that the government should make no law ``abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,'' they weren't saying that it was OK to be obnoxious, were they?

Well, yes they were.

For the incident I described at the beginning of this column occurred not last week, but in 1770. It culminated, later that evening, in the Boston Massacre. And it was that event, and many others like it, that fed into the creation of the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers weren't just bewigged gentlemen preening for their chance to grace American currency. They were loud, rude revolutionaries, keenly aware of the power of government to suppress dissent and determined not to let it happen again. In comparison to the world back then, the protests over the last few weeks have been mild.

In any event, today's protesters have a more fundamental worry than Lees' bill: Their protests failed. Rather than winning over others of the merits of their cause, the anti-war activists have had the opposite effect. As they demonstrated, support for the war, for U.S. troops and for President George Bush personally seemed to climb.

Why? I think there were three related problems.

First, the protesters ceded the moral high ground. Most professed to dislike Saddam Hussein, but found themselves in the creepy position of saying the United States shouldn't interfere in his brutalization of the Iraqi people - kind of like those who think of child abuse as a private, family matter.

Second, the anti-war marchers offered no coherent alternative. ``Do nothing'' was clearly not acceptable. Yet, quibbles over U.N. approval and inspectors notwithstanding (all of which were merely delaying tactics), few could tell you what they would have done instead. Instead of a decent argument, protest organizers offered up instead lots of marchers - as if numbers were a good substitute for substance.

Finally, those who opposed U.S. policy shared little common ground. The protesters seemed a lot like the Democratic Party - a collection of disparate interests rather than a group with a clear policy focus. Marchers in Boston included anti-Semites, anti-capitalists, Bush-haters, Francophiles, those nostalgic for the 1960s (with kids in tow: ``See, this is what it was like when Mommy was growing up!'') and, worst of all, a large contingent from Vermont.

That's not to say the protests were worthless. Two weeks ago, in anticipation of Boston's demonstration, the city towed cars and, seeing an opportunity, also cleaned the streets of sand and salt left over from the winter. Mine was one of those streets.

So from a purely selfish perspective, a good march at the beginning of every spring would be welcome. But those with more serious objectives - influencing peacekeeping in Iraq or worried about Donald Rumsfeld eyeing Syria - might want to rethink their strategy of automatically taking to the streets. Lees inadvertently might be doing them a favor: There are times when thoughtful argument persuades better.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.