6 ms·

Some protesters become rioters but some others were peaceful. What have happened to the freedom to assemble?

ghostpepper 6y ago
Isn't that technically the right to not have the government interfere with one's freedom to assemble? A private company doesn't owe anyone the right to book a room for the night.
- hartator 6y ago
  They don't but their mission statement states: > Airbnb's mission is to help create a world where you can belong anywhere and where people can live in a place, instead of just traveling to it. How does blocking people staying in DC help Airbnb mission? Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and mission statements are ideals to follow - no matter where you are in the society - or it's just hypocritical.
  - objectivetruth 6y ago
    Pretty easy to reconcile non-pedantically. For a large portion of their user base, "a world where you can belong anywhere" doesn't describe a post-successful-coup United States. For "Where people can live in a place," the "live" implies "peacefully thrive," and not "storm the seat of government." In fact, I think most corporate mission statements have an implied "no fascist dystopia" subtext.
halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
Restricting hospitality bookings is hardly infringing anybody's freedom to assemble.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  In what way is the DC government preventing travelers from reaching DC not infringement on freedom of assembly? It may be, given covid, the right decision, but it’s an infringement nevertheless.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Because it is not the DC government making the call. DC officials asked people not to go. Airbnb is the one blocking reservations and it made the decision to do so. It was not because of a government edict.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    The DC government asked people to not assemble. The government is free to make requests that it would not legally be able to enforce, and parties are free to comply or give the government the finger. In this case AirBnB has decided to voluntarily comply; I am sure there are other hotels and private lodgings that will do the opposite. This is not a story about trampling of rights. This is actually a story about what happens once a party loses the presumption of good faith. After 1/6 a lot of people are looking at the planned inauguration "protest" and saying "No, I think you're going to try another insurrection and I want no part of it".
- hartator 6y ago
  If it doesn't make the DC protests more difficult, what's the point then?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Of course it makes protesting more difficult. The issue is that you have no affirmative right to a hotel room, not even under a cockamamie theory about what the “freedom to assemble” means.
ashtonkem 6y ago
You don't have a right to book a hotel. Good lord this is getting silly.
- bordercases 6y ago
  Why isn't that consistent with the meaning of assembly?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Because the right to assembly has always been about whether or not the government has any ability to restrict or otherwise punish your right to free assembly, not whether or not private actors are obligated to assist. Let’s put it this way, if we hold that we must require companies to help protests because of the right to free assembly, that means that the local Starbucks wouldn’t be allowed to expel rowdy patrons so long as they’re “assembled”. To force AirBnB to do business against their will in order to support a political protest would in fact be authoritarian.
    - bordercases 6y ago
      Is this right only enforcable in the negative? Are there cases where the government can disagree with business and can instead encourage assembly, or do private ToSes veto that? Just saw your edit. What regulations aren't authoritarian? I am exploring your use of terms before we end up loading up too much unnecessary meaning.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        > Is this right only enforcable in the negative? Rights like speech, association, and assembly come in a positive and negative form. You have just as much of a right to not speak and not associate as you have to speak and assemble. For fairly obvious reasons the right to speak and the right to assemble gets invoked and litigated more often, but First Amendment lawyers typically have held that forcing parties to speak against their will is equally problematic. In this case forcing AirBnB to take these people in would be to violate their right to free association. With a few exceptions[0] you are not forced to do business with anyone against your will. The idea that we would trample AirBnB's rights in order to make it easier for someone else to exercise their rights is more than a bit troubling. > Are there cases where the government can disagree with business and can instead encourage assembly... The government can encourage all they want. As free citizens you also have the right to give the government the finger and say no. > or do private ToSes veto that? Depends on the quality of the ToS. You can't just throw obviously illegal or coercive stuff in a ToS and expect a court to uphold it. But the government has regularly upheld the idea that contracts can contain restrictions that the government could not possibly do, at least as long as the contract is freely entered and well formed. The government might not be able to take away your right to speak, but you can absolutely enter into a NDA that will restrict your right to speak. Similarly, it's legal to walk around without shoes and a shirt (well, if you're a man). But it's also legal for a business to declare "no shirt, no shoes, no service". This is a ToS "vetoeing" (bad term) someone's right to certain types of behavior within the confines of their own business. > What regulations aren't authoritarian? Are speed limits authoritarian? What about food safety ones? Most of us would say "no, those are not authoritarian". Regulations become authoritarian as they begin to expand in scope and arbitrariness, and when the benefit offered to society does not outweigh the infringement of the regulated parties' rights. Fundamentally, the government does not have a compelling interest in making it easy for a specific party to assemble and protest. They have an obligation to not make it arbitrarily hard, at least excluding reasonable public safety measures, but it's not their responsibility to ensure that there is adequate housing and transit. The idea that the government might get involved in private businesses to force them, against their will, to assist in a political protest is deeply alarming. Down that road bad things lay. 0 - The obvious exception to the right to not associate is anti-discrimination laws. Within living memory there have been various prejudices so common to effectively lock certain minorities completely out of participation in civic society. Congress and the federal government have persuaded the courts that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that these minorities are able to participate in society, a compelling interest that outweighs the rights of business owners to decide who they want to do business with. These restrictions are largely based around immutable characteristics such as race, sex, or religion (it's assumed that religious beliefs are deeply held, and nobody can force you to change). This obviously excludes political affiliation, behavior, speech, etc, and therefore isn't relevant in this case.
electrondood 6y ago
"Some protestors" coordinated in advance with domestic terrorist groups like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, etc. They were there specifically to attack the Capitol. Let's not pretend this was an entirely well-meaning and innocent group of people that accidentally made a bad decision.
mindslight 6y ago
My sibling comments talking about private entities are missing the mark, unfortunately advocating what is ultimately fascism (the synergy of government and corporate power) because it is convenient. However, the real answer is that force majeure happened. Enjoyment of rights is a pleasure of peacetime. We're veering towards having a civil war, and so society ends up prioritizing other concerns. That's not a normative statement, but a descriptive one. If you want enjoyment of your rights back sooner, speak out to end this "stop the steal" propaganda campaign.

Isn't that technically the right to not have the government interfere with one's freedom to assemble? A private company doesn't owe anyone the right to book a room for the night.

hartator 6y ago
They don't but their mission statement states: > Airbnb's mission is to help create a world where you can belong anywhere and where people can live in a place, instead of just traveling to it. How does blocking people staying in DC help Airbnb mission? Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and mission statements are ideals to follow - no matter where you are in the society - or it's just hypocritical.
- objectivetruth 6y ago
  Pretty easy to reconcile non-pedantically. For a large portion of their user base, "a world where you can belong anywhere" doesn't describe a post-successful-coup United States. For "Where people can live in a place," the "live" implies "peacefully thrive," and not "storm the seat of government." In fact, I think most corporate mission statements have an implied "no fascist dystopia" subtext.

halfmatthalfcat 6y ago

Restricting hospitality bookings is hardly infringing anybody's freedom to assemble.

jdminhbg 6y ago
In what way is the DC government preventing travelers from reaching DC not infringement on freedom of assembly? It may be, given covid, the right decision, but it’s an infringement nevertheless.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Because it is not the DC government making the call. DC officials asked people not to go. Airbnb is the one blocking reservations and it made the decision to do so. It was not because of a government edict.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The DC government asked people to not assemble. The government is free to make requests that it would not legally be able to enforce, and parties are free to comply or give the government the finger. In this case AirBnB has decided to voluntarily comply; I am sure there are other hotels and private lodgings that will do the opposite. This is not a story about trampling of rights. This is actually a story about what happens once a party loses the presumption of good faith. After 1/6 a lot of people are looking at the planned inauguration "protest" and saying "No, I think you're going to try another insurrection and I want no part of it".
hartator 6y ago
If it doesn't make the DC protests more difficult, what's the point then?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Of course it makes protesting more difficult. The issue is that you have no affirmative right to a hotel room, not even under a cockamamie theory about what the “freedom to assemble” means.

ashtonkem 6y ago

You don't have a right to book a hotel. Good lord this is getting silly.

bordercases 6y ago
Why isn't that consistent with the meaning of assembly?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Because the right to assembly has always been about whether or not the government has any ability to restrict or otherwise punish your right to free assembly, not whether or not private actors are obligated to assist. Let’s put it this way, if we hold that we must require companies to help protests because of the right to free assembly, that means that the local Starbucks wouldn’t be allowed to expel rowdy patrons so long as they’re “assembled”. To force AirBnB to do business against their will in order to support a political protest would in fact be authoritarian.
  - bordercases 6y ago
    Is this right only enforcable in the negative? Are there cases where the government can disagree with business and can instead encourage assembly, or do private ToSes veto that? Just saw your edit. What regulations aren't authoritarian? I am exploring your use of terms before we end up loading up too much unnecessary meaning.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > Is this right only enforcable in the negative? Rights like speech, association, and assembly come in a positive and negative form. You have just as much of a right to not speak and not associate as you have to speak and assemble. For fairly obvious reasons the right to speak and the right to assemble gets invoked and litigated more often, but First Amendment lawyers typically have held that forcing parties to speak against their will is equally problematic. In this case forcing AirBnB to take these people in would be to violate their right to free association. With a few exceptions[0] you are not forced to do business with anyone against your will. The idea that we would trample AirBnB's rights in order to make it easier for someone else to exercise their rights is more than a bit troubling. > Are there cases where the government can disagree with business and can instead encourage assembly... The government can encourage all they want. As free citizens you also have the right to give the government the finger and say no. > or do private ToSes veto that? Depends on the quality of the ToS. You can't just throw obviously illegal or coercive stuff in a ToS and expect a court to uphold it. But the government has regularly upheld the idea that contracts can contain restrictions that the government could not possibly do, at least as long as the contract is freely entered and well formed. The government might not be able to take away your right to speak, but you can absolutely enter into a NDA that will restrict your right to speak. Similarly, it's legal to walk around without shoes and a shirt (well, if you're a man). But it's also legal for a business to declare "no shirt, no shoes, no service". This is a ToS "vetoeing" (bad term) someone's right to certain types of behavior within the confines of their own business. > What regulations aren't authoritarian? Are speed limits authoritarian? What about food safety ones? Most of us would say "no, those are not authoritarian". Regulations become authoritarian as they begin to expand in scope and arbitrariness, and when the benefit offered to society does not outweigh the infringement of the regulated parties' rights. Fundamentally, the government does not have a compelling interest in making it easy for a specific party to assemble and protest. They have an obligation to not make it arbitrarily hard, at least excluding reasonable public safety measures, but it's not their responsibility to ensure that there is adequate housing and transit. The idea that the government might get involved in private businesses to force them, against their will, to assist in a political protest is deeply alarming. Down that road bad things lay. 0 - The obvious exception to the right to not associate is anti-discrimination laws. Within living memory there have been various prejudices so common to effectively lock certain minorities completely out of participation in civic society. Congress and the federal government have persuaded the courts that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that these minorities are able to participate in society, a compelling interest that outweighs the rights of business owners to decide who they want to do business with. These restrictions are largely based around immutable characteristics such as race, sex, or religion (it's assumed that religious beliefs are deeply held, and nobody can force you to change). This obviously excludes political affiliation, behavior, speech, etc, and therefore isn't relevant in this case.

electrondood 6y ago

"Some protestors" coordinated in advance with domestic terrorist groups like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, etc. They were there specifically to attack the Capitol. Let's not pretend this was an entirely well-meaning and innocent group of people that accidentally made a bad decision.

mindslight 6y ago

My sibling comments talking about private entities are missing the mark, unfortunately advocating what is ultimately fascism (the synergy of government and corporate power) because it is convenient. However, the real answer is that force majeure happened. Enjoyment of rights is a pleasure of peacetime. We're veering towards having a civil war, and so society ends up prioritizing other concerns. That's not a normative statement, but a descriptive one. If you want enjoyment of your rights back sooner, speak out to end this "stop the steal" propaganda campaign.