3 ms·

The First Amendment can be abridged under the same conditions as the others: when it serves a compelling governmental interest. This is subject to the strict sc

The First Amendment can be abridged under the same conditions as the others: when it serves a compelling governmental interest. This is subject to the strict scrutiny which comes with abridging Constitutional rights; it must be done via the least restrictive means possible, through a rule narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. (In the case of the first amendment specifically, it must also be a viewpoint-neutral rule.) This is a high bar to clear. It's not clear that all lockdowns clear it. (It's also not clear that, should they fail to clear it, there will be any effective remedy in the courts, because of qualified immunity.)

tomohawk 7y ago
Exactly right. A blanket abridgement probably isn't reasonable, especially when many businesses remain open with appropriate safeguards in place.
Digory 7y ago
If you’re in the religious media silos, you’ve seen a steady stream of police chasing people out of church parking lots, trying to “gather” safely — listening to the preacher on low power FM, in separate cars with the windows up. Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations. If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  You die with no food. You do not die missing a Sunday service or a few.
  - Digory 7y ago
    You do not die from the virus by parking in a lot, all things being equal. And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs. If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    Yes, but the Sunday service provides nourishment for your soul, which they may decide is more valuable than life itself. Are you going to say they are wrong? Well, you're welcome to say that, and I'd happen to agree with you in practice, but our jurisprudence does not allow us to make that decision for others. Thus there is a strong case that, to the extent to which the government stops these services, it cannot be because they say that this is not essential. Rather, it must be because the measures stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, and that no narrower measures would suffice. (And if you did want to actually make Sunday services happen, you'd be well served by devising narrow measures that do suffice.)

tomohawk 7y ago

Exactly right. A blanket abridgement probably isn't reasonable, especially when many businesses remain open with appropriate safeguards in place.

Digory 7y ago

If you’re in the religious media silos, you’ve seen a steady stream of police chasing people out of church parking lots, trying to “gather” safely — listening to the preacher on low power FM, in separate cars with the windows up. Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations. If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.

ceejayoz 7y ago
You die with no food. You do not die missing a Sunday service or a few.
- Digory 7y ago
  You do not die from the virus by parking in a lot, all things being equal. And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs. If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  Yes, but the Sunday service provides nourishment for your soul, which they may decide is more valuable than life itself. Are you going to say they are wrong? Well, you're welcome to say that, and I'd happen to agree with you in practice, but our jurisprudence does not allow us to make that decision for others. Thus there is a strong case that, to the extent to which the government stops these services, it cannot be because they say that this is not essential. Rather, it must be because the measures stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, and that no narrower measures would suffice. (And if you did want to actually make Sunday services happen, you'd be well served by devising narrow measures that do suffice.)