"Residential-picketing ordinances" prevent picketing focused on a particular residence. Such local laws may prevent demonstrations not only in froot of a targeted residence, but also in front of surrounding residences. They may also limit the number of picketers and the time and duration of the demonstratlons to take account of the character of the neighborhood and the privacy of the “target.”

L.A. Mun. Code § 56.45(e), for example, prohibits targeted demonstrations focused upon and at or about a private residence. That subsection states:

“Any person, acting alone or in concert with others, who pickets parades or patrols in a manner that is both  (1)  focused upon the private residence or dwelling of any individual residing within the City of Los Angeles, and  (2)  takes place within one hundred (100) feet of such private residence shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

“Except as specified herein, nothing in this subsection shall prohibit generally the peaceful picketing or distributing pamphlets, going door-to-door, alone or in groups, in residential neighborhoods.”

The seminal case regarding targeted residential picketing is Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474 [101 L.Ed.2d 420, 108 S.Ct. 2495]. Since the ordinance in Frisby was content neutral but applied in a public forum, the court analyzed whether the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and whether it left open ample alternative channels of communication. (487 U.S. at p. 482 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 430].)

The Court found the ordinance was intended to protect an important privacy interest, that of residential privacy, which includes protection of the unwilling listener in his home (487 U.S. at p. 484 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 432]):

“There simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener.” (Id. at p. 485 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 432].) Pointing out the especially offensive nature of targeted picketing, the court said that such picketing “is fundamentally different from more generally directed means of communication that may not be completely banned in residential areas. . . Here in contrast, the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The type of picketers banned by the . . . ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover, even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt . . . ” (Id. at p. 486 [101 L.Ed.2d at pp. 432—433].)

Again, however, the relevant statute within the City of L.A. is L.A. Mun. Code, § 56.45(e). That statute proscribes "parad[ing] or patrol[ing]" that both:

"(1)  [is] focused upon the private residence or dwelling of any individual residing within the City of Los Angeles, and 

"(2)  takes place within one hundred (100) feet of such private residence . . . "

In recent year, other nearby cities have also adopted ordinances proscribing similar conduct. Usually, the difference between L.A.'s and theirs is the distance to a private home within which the "picketing" cannot take place.

So, please check what city you are in and, based on the local law governing, be sure of the exact distance between your parade and the robber baron's home! (There's really no need to make it easy for the police to arrest you, is there?)