3 ms·

Persons within the age range of 18-22 are not a protected class, so this does seem legal. Effective, maybe? I assume this is based on the idea that this age gro

Persons within the age range of 18-22 are not a protected class, so this does seem legal. Effective, maybe? I assume this is based on the idea that this age group is acting as super spreaders. Ethical? That's a judgment call. I say yes, personally.

dx87 6y ago
I don't see how it isn't agains the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. I could see it if it was a blanket lock down, maybe even on just 18-22 year olds, but it still has carve outs for going to school or work. Maybe someone with more experience could chime in, but I don't see how the government restricting how people can gather is constitutional. Only being allowed to participate in government approved activities is a slippery slope I'd rather we don't get started down.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  If "government approved" is the line you are worried about, take a look at driver's licenses and food selling.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  > I don't see how it isn't against the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. I assume that there are a number of factors here, most notably that the assembling, while peaceful, poses a considerable danger to the public. Certainly it would be nice to see some sort of carve out for explicit protesting but there you go. All allowed activities are government approved activities.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  >I don't see how the government restricting how people can gather is constitutional None of the rights in the bill of rights are absolute. For better or for worse, the courts have decided that pretty much every right you have can be limited in the name of public safety. If I'm in jail, the warden has no obligation to let me out if I want to go to my best friend's birthday party. If I try to stage an unpermitted protest in the middle of the street, I will eventually be removed

3 ms·

Persons within the age range of 18-22 are not a protected class, so this does seem legal. Effective, maybe? I assume this is based on the idea that this age gro

by staticassertion 6y ago

dx87 6y ago
I don't see how it isn't agains the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. I could see it if it was a blanket lock down, maybe even on just 18-22 year olds, but it still has carve outs for going to school or work. Maybe someone with more experience could chime in, but I don't see how the government restricting how people can gather is constitutional. Only being allowed to participate in government approved activities is a slippery slope I'd rather we don't get started down.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  If "government approved" is the line you are worried about, take a look at driver's licenses and food selling.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  > I don't see how it isn't against the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. I assume that there are a number of factors here, most notably that the assembling, while peaceful, poses a considerable danger to the public. Certainly it would be nice to see some sort of carve out for explicit protesting but there you go. All allowed activities are government approved activities.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  >I don't see how the government restricting how people can gather is constitutional None of the rights in the bill of rights are absolute. For better or for worse, the courts have decided that pretty much every right you have can be limited in the name of public safety. If I'm in jail, the warden has no obligation to let me out if I want to go to my best friend's birthday party. If I try to stage an unpermitted protest in the middle of the street, I will eventually be removed