4 ms·

(I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitu

(I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based restrictions). It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks).

munk-a 7y ago
> It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.
- otterley 7y ago
  I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.
Symmetry 7y ago
I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
- wbl 7y ago
  The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
  - cbm-vic-20 7y ago
    You also have the right to not assemble.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech until you yell fire in a crowded theater. Pandemic related quarantines have been established as being constitutional in past rulings.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Actually, it is completely legal to yell fire in a crowded theater. What you are not allowed to I am not sure why people continue to use this tired excuse. What is illegal is wanting to harm people by yelling fire in a crowded theater that is not actually on fire, although it is also illegal to knowingly hide that the theater is on fire. Nevertheless the reference itself comes from a really terrible case where the supreme court wrongly infringed on the rights of a war dissenter. It is not a concept that ought to be continued to be parroted.
- paulmd 7y ago
  If your interpretation were correct then there could be no regulation of assembly at all. This is not correct and SCOTUS has already supported content-neutral time/place/manner restrictions on assembly, for more than a century iirc. Saying "no gatherings of more than 1000" is facially legal. Plenty of protests have been told it's time to disperse before. Furthermore, SCOTUS typically grants even wider powers in extigent circumstances. It is probably also legal to say "no gatherings at all, everyone back to your houses for the duration of this crisis". An example would be something like the boston bomber crisis, although I don't think it was litigated, that probably would have been found to be legal as well.
  - 7y ago

munk-a 7y ago

> It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.

otterley 7y ago
I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.

Symmetry 7y ago

I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

wbl 7y ago
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
- cbm-vic-20 7y ago
  You also have the right to not assemble.
munk-a 7y ago
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech until you yell fire in a crowded theater. Pandemic related quarantines have been established as being constitutional in past rulings.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Actually, it is completely legal to yell fire in a crowded theater. What you are not allowed to I am not sure why people continue to use this tired excuse. What is illegal is wanting to harm people by yelling fire in a crowded theater that is not actually on fire, although it is also illegal to knowingly hide that the theater is on fire. Nevertheless the reference itself comes from a really terrible case where the supreme court wrongly infringed on the rights of a war dissenter. It is not a concept that ought to be continued to be parroted.
paulmd 7y ago
If your interpretation were correct then there could be no regulation of assembly at all. This is not correct and SCOTUS has already supported content-neutral time/place/manner restrictions on assembly, for more than a century iirc. Saying "no gatherings of more than 1000" is facially legal. Plenty of protests have been told it's time to disperse before. Furthermore, SCOTUS typically grants even wider powers in extigent circumstances. It is probably also legal to say "no gatherings at all, everyone back to your houses for the duration of this crisis". An example would be something like the boston bomber crisis, although I don't think it was litigated, that probably would have been found to be legal as well.
- 7y ago