6 ms·
“ Philadelphia had scheduled a big Liberty Loan parade for September 28. Doctors urged Krusen to cancel it, fearful that hundreds of thousands jamming the route
by jtdev 7y ago
“ Philadelphia had scheduled a big Liberty Loan parade for September 28. Doctors urged Krusen to cancel it, fearful that hundreds of thousands jamming the route, crushing against each other for a better view, would spread disease. They convinced reporters to write stories about the danger. But editors refused to run them, and refused to print letters from doctors. The largest parade in Philadelphia’s history proceeded on schedule.”
I see that Switzerland has imposed a ban on gathering of 1000 or more in response to COVID19 - maybe other countries should consider doing the same?
- wincy 7y agoFor the USA at least, wouldn't imposing a ban rather than a recommendation be a violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly?
- t-writescode 7y agoNot a lawyer, I think it would depend on the exact laws and rulings around martial law. Curfews are a thing, but I don’t know if they’re constitutional.
- jtdev 7y agoSure, a recommendation seems good too... anything rather than just burying our heads in the sand.
- close04 7y agoAren’t some authorizations still needed to organize larger events? I think that’s the ban, no more concerts, sold out football matches, etc.
- ceejayoz 7y agoSCOTUS has repeatedly recognized quarantine as an exception.
- PopePompus 7y agoIf the CDC merely urged that all large gatherings be cancelled, that would probably result in the cancellation of 95% of them, with no constitutional implications.
- macintux 7y agoCan they at this point? It seems like their authority has been emasculated.
- Loughla 7y agoI don't understand what you mean by this.
- morelisp 7y ago"Emasculated" is a bizarre word to use, but I assume it's in reference to Trump putting Pence, rather than anyone at the CDC or HHS, in charge of official messaging around COVID-19.
- Loughla 7y agoAh, I've been on a politics fast for a few days, so I missed that. Without devolving into an inevitable political shouting match, what would the purpose of that move be?
- erikerikson 7y agoSignaling that it's being taken seriously at the "highest levels" to support confidence?
- evanelias 7y agoI wonder if it could also be an insurance strategy: if things go south, Pence takes all the blame and is booted from the 2020 ticket?
- cletus 7y agoIt’s really unfortunate that the word “right” is used here because no “right” is absolute. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can falsely yell “active shooter” in a crowded theater. Freedom to bear arms doesn’t mean you’re allowed to own nuclear weapon or a surface to air missile battery. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you can go where you want, when you want. Other needs and limits can preempt these “rights” so they’re not really right at all.
- tzs 7y agoRestrictions on that right are subject to "strict scrutiny", which is the highest standard of judicial review. To satisfy it, the government has to show that it has a compelling state interest and that their solution is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Curfews for public safety after natural disasters like fires and floods, or to prevent spread of disease, or in times of extreme civil unrest like riots have been found to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Since a ban on large gatherings is less of an imposition on your freedom of assembly than a curfew, I'd expect that it would be allowed.
- vikramkr 7y agoLegal eagle did a video on Youtube that came out yesterday that seemed to suggest that the government has leeway in cases of pandemics (sort of like in wartime) that it wouldn't have otherwise. It might technically be unconstitutional under some readings of it, but SCOTUS might rule that it's warranted.
- ceejayoz 7y agoBasically: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
- arkades 7y agoThere's an awful lot of case law to date that allows for public health departments to violate constitutional rights to address a public health emergency. The legal right to quarantine is pretty much predicated on "for the good of society, your constitutional rights are out the window." I hope I don't sound critical of this. I'm not. I'm in favor of empowering public health departments, with accountability and oversight and judicial review, to do what is needed to prevent massive tragedy. I'm just putting it bluntly: our case law on this topic is reasonably well-settled, and one-sided, as pertains to epidemics. (Now, as pertains to vaccinating...)
- throwaway55554 7y agoIt can be regulated if it impinges upon my rights.
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoI believe the current legal interpretation of freedom of assembly in the US is that it only applies if your assembly is ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’.
- jtdev 7y agoTo add a little context: I’m currently scheduled to attend a ~50000 attendee international conference in the U.S. My employer has sponsored - and I’m not in a position to refuse to attend (yet). The host org is standing firm on pushing forward as scheduled, but has released a bunch of PR B.S. communications about hand sanitizer, face masks, etc. being provided and quarantine of symptomatic individuals at the event (not sure how they’re going to swing that). I’m not in the age demographic for high mortality from COVID19, but I’m concerned that I might pick it up and bring it back to my home community - where there are people in the high mortality demo. It seems that a neutral third party (CDC???) should step in and say “we’re recommending that this event be canceled”. Which would make it much easier on all to simply not attend if the event does in fact go forward.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoOut of curiosity, what conference is that big? NAB?
- jtdev 7y agoHIMSS (Health Information and Management Systems Society), the irony is just...
- pault 7y agoI suggest dropping some of your concerns around social media to see if it picks up steam. If it gets the attention of enough people, they'll have to take it more seriously. The way you've described it irks me a little bit.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agobeing blocked by HIMSS on twitter for asking and having a conversation should really ring alarm bells. hope some high follower accounts pick this up and RT it for more visibility.
- moneil971 7y ago