4 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
      - dekhn 7y ago
        There are more than a few decisions that would appear to bear at least indirectly on this situation which can help us guess what the outcome would be. In particular, the "clear and present danger" standard would probably apply; since one could tie assembly to disease transmission, a highly infectious disease would seem to qualify. Another area that speech has been restricted has been around espionage and wartime; it's clear that during wartime, our ability to speak becomes much more restricted, at least partially for security reasons. Again, the practical reason for this is that war can be an existential risk for a country, and generally, people are more than willing to give up their rights temporarily to avoid the risk of their entire nation being wiped out. So, while I agree (to my limited knowledge; I'm just a speculating engineer) that there is no direct case law that bears on this, I do feel that my predictions on which side the SC would fall (unless the court was packed with Scalias) are reasonable. There is little more for me to add so I think I will terminate my participation in this subthread.
dragonwriter 7y 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.)

jxramos 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
    - dekhn 7y ago
      There are more than a few decisions that would appear to bear at least indirectly on this situation which can help us guess what the outcome would be. In particular, the "clear and present danger" standard would probably apply; since one could tie assembly to disease transmission, a highly infectious disease would seem to qualify. Another area that speech has been restricted has been around espionage and wartime; it's clear that during wartime, our ability to speak becomes much more restricted, at least partially for security reasons. Again, the practical reason for this is that war can be an existential risk for a country, and generally, people are more than willing to give up their rights temporarily to avoid the risk of their entire nation being wiped out. So, while I agree (to my limited knowledge; I'm just a speculating engineer) that there is no direct case law that bears on this, I do feel that my predictions on which side the SC would fall (unless the court was packed with Scalias) are reasonable. There is little more for me to add so I think I will terminate my participation in this subthread.

dragonwriter 7y 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.)