4 ms·

In the United States, it doesn't make any difference if protests are dangerous. They are protected speech in freedom of assembly, end of story.

• EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Isn't that demonstrably wrong as well as a gross oversimplification? Freedom of assembly is not an absolute right; that would be absurd. No 1st amendment right is absolute. Are you trying to argue that there are no legal exceptions to freedom of assembly? If so, try protesting in the middle of your nearest freeway without a permit and explain your stance to the police who'd show up to ask you to move along.
  • chasil 6y ago
    The most relevant standard for freedom of speech in the United States is the doctrine of "Imminent Lawless Action." I'm assuming that it is relevant for the freedom of assembly as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
• quicklime 6y ago
  From the government’s perspective, maybe. People still need to decide whether they want to take on the risk of attending a protest, and they should be informed (by experts) when doing so.
  • chasil 6y ago
    In 1789, the year of ratification of the U.S. constitution, smallpox was still a lethal disease. Preventative treatment for smallpox was a procedure named "variolation," which involved purposeful infection with smallpox by a scratch. Variolation had a 3% fatality rate; normal transmission of smallpox was 15-20%. A person who had recently undergone variolation could transmit the disease normally, and definitely required isolation. George Washington required all members of the continental army to undergo variolation in our rebellion against the British. The United States has faced enormous pressure from disease, and no mark of this is in the first amendment. (p.s. I am surprised that we have not attempted the equivalent of variolation with ancestors of the current corona virus.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation