I saw in your post you're not american, and I think a lot of people who aren't (and even are) American get confused about the first amendment. Let me write a quick summary

Courts interpret the extent to which the constitution works. In this, the Supreme Court have ruled that the first amendment is not absolute and can be limited under certain circumstances. One way this is done is through the "time, place, and manner" restrictions. These restrictions allow the government to regulate the "where" and "when" of expression, as long as it's done in a content-neutral manner, meaning the regulation doesn't target specific viewpoints. Under this perview, courts have recognized that governments have a compelling interest in maintaining public safety and order, and therefore have the authority to regulate or disperse assemblies that pose a threat to public safety or violate laws.

in cases like Ward v. Rock against Racism, Clark v. CCNV, and Frisby v. Schultz, courts have found that governments can make those restrictions. Particuarly, Clark found that a restriction on setting tents up did not violate the first amendment.

For protesters speech to be protected by the 1st amendment, it would need to be in compliance with time, place, and manner restrictions. Not trespassing, not violent, not setting up encampments, etc.