Who says Americans aren’t amusing as all get-out?

For weeks, snooping FBI agents have been asking dozens of supposed subversives whether they or their associates were planning to act badly at the political conventions in Boston and New York.

Included in this dragnet, according to the New York Times, was an intern at the Denver office of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization founded by the Quakers in 1917 to work for peace and social justice.

The FBI’s response to the Times report was that the interviews were conducted “within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution” to verify intelligence about possible violence or disruptive activity.

Could these political activists have been planning to make puppets as roadblocks, like those who were arrested before they could rally during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, only to have the charges dropped?

A trio of Democratic members of Congress reacted by asking the Justice Department to start asking questions about whether the FBI has been acting badly.

Meanwhile, a protest group called United for Peace and Justice has been complaining that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his minions have acted badly in refusing to allow some 250,000 people to rally at Central Park’s Great Lawn during the upcoming Republican National Convention.

City officials, who argue that the lawn can accommodate only 80,000, grouse that the protesters have acted badly by agreeing to an alternate location and then changing their minds and insisting on the park.

Ah, but these aren’t humorless bureaucrats. Last week, Bloomberg trotted out former Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins to help announce a promotion that humorist Dave “I’m Not Making This Up” Barry might have concocted.

Just in time for the Republicans, the city will hand out “Welcome Peaceful Political Activists” buttons featuring a beady-eyed but otherwise cutesy cartoon of the Statue of Liberty.

Sport a button and grab a discount: a free logo mug at the Gotham Comedy Club, $65 or $75 tickets to “Mamma Mia!,” 10 percent off meals at Applebee’s, $2 off admission to the Whitney Museum of American Art.

It’s all there at www.nycvisit.com – even a pop-up window for printing off a “peaceful political activists savings card.”

Of course, anarchists might just as easily get the perks as peaceniks. So might the police and fire union reps who’ve been following Bloomberg around town, hounding him for pay increases.

But, hey, their money spends, too.

It might be easy to chuckle at this oh-so-New-York attempt to elevate commercial enterprise over free speech concerns. But let’s not be diverted from the serious questions about balancing individual rights with public safety.

The First Amendment’s “right of the people peaceably to assemble” notwithstanding, the government does have authority to deter and punish crime and to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on public gatherings.

None of the government’s actions can be about suppressing political beliefs, curtailing unpopular messages or promoting views that officials consider preferable. But where does dissidence morph into criminality, particularly in an age of terror?

When an FBI agent knocks on the door and starts asking about your plans during a political convention, is that intimidating enough to prevent you from exercising your rights? Sure, you can refuse to answer, but who in their right mind believes that the monitoring will cease? Is enhanced public safety worth the chilling of one person’s speech?

If, on the other hand, an agent’s intimidation disrupts a budding plot to plant bombs, damage property or engage in other lawlessness that would threaten peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders, isn’t that a social benefit? Malevolents whose only aim is to cause havoc and destruction add nothing valuable to public debate.

Regulation of public assemblies, such as requiring parade permits, is permitted under the First Amendment if it doesn’t aim to censor particular kinds of speech, promotes a substantial government interest and allows alternative avenues of communication.

Under that test, the Supreme Court has allowed New York City to require the use of a city sound system for Central Park concerts and has let the U.S. Park Service prevent advocates for the homeless from actually sleeping in a symbolic tent city erected in Lafayette Park near the White House.

But if protesters are relegated to a location far from where a powerful politician is appearing, is that a reasonable alternative? Should they be content to make the evening news?

These aren’t idle questions. And they deserve at least as much contemplation as a $5 discount at the Museum of Sex.