A new city ordinance kicked in last week: It restricts demonstrations outside of individual homes in Boston to certain hours— 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. It’s a reasonable rule, one that imposes $50 fines for a first offense, $150 for the second, and $300 for the third or more. And it’s not groundbreaking by any means. Other cities and towns have set up other restrictions that have withstood First Amendment court challenges.

The new measure here in Boston was prompted in the near term by the constant barrage of noisy early morning protests by anti-vax mandate activists who have been relentlessly targeting Mayor Wu for months now, showing up on her street in Roslindale to express their grievances over city policies on masks and vaccinations. The protests have sometimes started up as early as 7 a.m. with whistles, drums, and inane shouting disrupting the peace in what should be a quiet residential setting in a city neighborhood.

Last Friday, around 7:30 a.m., the first five people to defy the ordinance were assessed fines outside of Wu’s home. The restrictions, incidentally, apply not only to Wu’s residence, but also to any private home in the city that might become the target of demonstrators.

Naturally, there are those who worry that any barrier to free speech should be avoided. In fact, four city councillors— Erin Murphy, Frank Baker, Julia Mejia, and Kendra Lara— opposed the ordinance in a 9-4 council vote last week.

For all that, there were already noise ordinance restrictions in place in the city that de facto have banned the sort of noisy demonstrations that have besieged Wu’s family and her neighbors between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. The new rule effectively amends the earlier time frame by two hours in the morning and two hours at night, leaving ample opportunity for those intent on gathering to make themselves heard throughout the day and evening and even into the night.

The principle behind the ordinance is sound. Public officials, of course, should be thick-skinned enough to face scrutiny, pushback, and, yes, even sustained protests. But neighbors — most of whom have no involvement in the policy-making decisions that prompt such reactions— shouldn’t have to withstand that same disruption to their daily lives, particularly in the tranquility of their private homes, purchased in most cases long before the mayor’s election.

Having lived within view and earshot of Michelle Wu’s predecessor, it was not without precedent that citizens seeking to get the mayor’s attention would assemble near Marty Walsh’s home. But it happened on just a few occasions, and without the orchestrated intent of making life miserable for the larger community.

The onslaught that Wu’s opponents have unleashed in Roslindale has been nasty, wrongheaded, and counterproductive. Ideally, they’ll smarten up and realize that harassment of the mayor isn’t winning them any converts. Quite the opposite, actually. I know of several people who are sympathetic to their position in concept, but find their tactics outrageous.

That said, they still have the right to do it, just not at the crack of dawn or well into the night. That seems like fair play.