3 ms·

I'll take the bait. Whilst I'm confused on what rights are being violated that need to be fought for. I'm more confused as to your comment about doing what the

I'll take the bait. Whilst I'm confused on what rights are being violated that need to be fought for. I'm more confused as to your comment about doing what the government says to do. Your comment paints following orders from the government for the sake of safety as an unheard of concept. Why do you think driver licenses are required to operate a motorized vehicle? To collect fees from license applications? Or to ensure that drivers on the road and pedestrians safety isn't in danger due to reckless drivers?

seppin 6y ago
> I'll take the bait. Don't. The Bay Areas infection numbers, despite their early exposure, are excellent. Early and aggressive shelter in place orders are to thank. Everything else is noise.
dmitrygr 6y ago
I'll take your bait > what rights are being violated? "Right of the people peaceably to assemble" - US Constitution - the highest law of the land. It may be stupid to assemble now (which is why i am staying at home), but that in no way makes actually forbidding it constitutional.
- jxramos 6y ago
  Freedom of movement too while we're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
- dekhn 6y ago
  You're basically claiming that if somebody made a well-organized lawsuit, they could bring this to the supreme court and the SC would say "yes, in the case of emergency/pandemic, people can continue to assemble against direct orders from the executive office of the state/federal government". I think instead, the SC would find that the first amendment has limitations in the case of large-scale health situations. It's not even remotely productive to start from the "I have absolute rights due to the constitution" arguments.
  - dmitrygr 6y ago
    A conditional right is no right at all. And for the sake of us all, i hope that if the case were to be brought in front of SCOTUS, they'd correctly write that "yes pandemics suck and compliance is important, but constitution is more so. Local gvmnts are free to find other ways to do this, but a virus is no excuse for constitutional transgressions" The first amendment has no limitations, except those outlined in it itself or in caselaw. None that applies to this situation, so for now, luckily, you are wrong. > It's not even remotely productive to start from the "I have absolute rights due to the constitution" arguments. WHAT? It saddens me to see views like these. Mostly I see them in people who never fought for their rights, and never lived in places lacking them. You may amend the constitution if you disagree with it, via a proper process, but discarding it as "not productive" is insulting
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      >And for the sake of us all, i hope that if the case were to be brought in front of SCOTUS, they'd correctly write that And you would be wrong, as this is the quintessential "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Free Speech is conditional, since at least 1969 when it last went to the SCOTUS. The reason it's unproductive to start from that space, is because today, the Constitution does not grant you unconditional rights. You don't have an unconditional right to own a gun either.
      - dmitrygr 6y ago
        I mentioned "relevant caselaw" to head off comments exactly like yours. There was a few clear SCOTUS decisions on what limits there exist on 1st amendment, and movement limits weren't in there
        nemothekid 6y ago
        >A conditional right is no right at all. This is what you stated, and now you are agreeing that there are conditions. If you now agree that there are conditions that these rights can be applied, I believe an actual pandemic would be reasonable as a condition to the first amendment.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If an assembly or class of assemblies pose a significant threat to public safety, then it does not violate the right to peaceable assembly for government to limit or prohibit them (if the targeting is discriminatory on religious or other content grounds, there may be issues with religious freedom or free speech aspects of the first amendment, but that's not an issue here.) That's why the right to peaceably assemble doesn't mean you can, e.g., freely blockade hospital entrances. Public health quarantines have been recognized as a legitimate state power by the US Supreme Court consistently, in cases running back to 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden.)

seppin 6y ago

> I'll take the bait. Don't. The Bay Areas infection numbers, despite their early exposure, are excellent. Early and aggressive shelter in place orders are to thank. Everything else is noise.

dmitrygr 6y ago

I'll take your bait > what rights are being violated? "Right of the people peaceably to assemble" - US Constitution - the highest law of the land. It may be stupid to assemble now (which is why i am staying at home), but that in no way makes actually forbidding it constitutional.

jxramos 6y ago
Freedom of movement too while we're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
dekhn 6y ago
You're basically claiming that if somebody made a well-organized lawsuit, they could bring this to the supreme court and the SC would say "yes, in the case of emergency/pandemic, people can continue to assemble against direct orders from the executive office of the state/federal government". I think instead, the SC would find that the first amendment has limitations in the case of large-scale health situations. It's not even remotely productive to start from the "I have absolute rights due to the constitution" arguments.
- dmitrygr 6y ago
  A conditional right is no right at all. And for the sake of us all, i hope that if the case were to be brought in front of SCOTUS, they'd correctly write that "yes pandemics suck and compliance is important, but constitution is more so. Local gvmnts are free to find other ways to do this, but a virus is no excuse for constitutional transgressions" The first amendment has no limitations, except those outlined in it itself or in caselaw. None that applies to this situation, so for now, luckily, you are wrong. > It's not even remotely productive to start from the "I have absolute rights due to the constitution" arguments. WHAT? It saddens me to see views like these. Mostly I see them in people who never fought for their rights, and never lived in places lacking them. You may amend the constitution if you disagree with it, via a proper process, but discarding it as "not productive" is insulting
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    >And for the sake of us all, i hope that if the case were to be brought in front of SCOTUS, they'd correctly write that And you would be wrong, as this is the quintessential "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Free Speech is conditional, since at least 1969 when it last went to the SCOTUS. The reason it's unproductive to start from that space, is because today, the Constitution does not grant you unconditional rights. You don't have an unconditional right to own a gun either.
    - dmitrygr 6y ago
      I mentioned "relevant caselaw" to head off comments exactly like yours. There was a few clear SCOTUS decisions on what limits there exist on 1st amendment, and movement limits weren't in there
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        >A conditional right is no right at all. This is what you stated, and now you are agreeing that there are conditions. If you now agree that there are conditions that these rights can be applied, I believe an actual pandemic would be reasonable as a condition to the first amendment.
dragonwriter 6y ago
If an assembly or class of assemblies pose a significant threat to public safety, then it does not violate the right to peaceable assembly for government to limit or prohibit them (if the targeting is discriminatory on religious or other content grounds, there may be issues with religious freedom or free speech aspects of the first amendment, but that's not an issue here.) That's why the right to peaceably assemble doesn't mean you can, e.g., freely blockade hospital entrances. Public health quarantines have been recognized as a legitimate state power by the US Supreme Court consistently, in cases running back to 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden.)