7 ms·

> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute

> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so? Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).

Thrymr 12y ago
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" is protected in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The letter writer seems to be referring to the shutting down a public street, which indeed could subject to a permit by a local government (for a protest or a parade).
- rquantz 12y ago
  You've misquoted the amendment. It is "the right to peaceably assemble." The Constitution was written before the invention of grammar nazis, and before Victorian snobs decided you couldn't split an infinitive verb.
  - graycat 12y ago
    The excuse I heard was that an infinitive in English is two words but corresponds to a single word in Latin, and, of course, as all good Latin experts know, English grammar should be as much like Latin as possible! So, since can't split a single word infinitive in Latin, we shouldn't in English! So, "to be" is okay but "to not be" would be bad. "To an infinitive split" would be awful! So, string me up if I were to badly split an infinitive!
    - jcrites 12y ago
      Sometimes it just sounds better. Why it does is an interesting question for linguists. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" "We are determined to completely and utterly eradicate the disease." "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." "Writers should learn to not split infinitives." It's also not always possible to eliminate the split infinitive, or the infinitive, without changing the direct or implied meaning of the sentence. "She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually" works fairly well. "Boldly going where no man has gone before" is close, but doesn't capture the same challenge, summons, call to action as the original. Nor does it sound as pleasing.
      - graycat 12y ago
        For the stuff inside the split infinitive, it can to tough to know where else to put it. So, what would we want? "Boldly to go where ..." or "To go boldly where ..."? To be really clear that 'boldly' modifies 'to go', it's easiest to split the infinitive. Your "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." is terrific! There's just no good other place to put 'gradually'! In case you misunderstood me, for grammar for English, really I have no sympathy for what the heck Latin did!
        mrpoptart 12y ago
        > There's just no good other place to put 'gradually'! She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually.
        tekromancr 12y ago
        Not an english expert, but would "She wants, gradually, to get rid of her teddy bears" work?
        graycat 12y ago
        Problem is, without thinking about the likely meaning, at first glance it's not clear what 'gradually' modifies, that is, it may modify 'wants', that is, her wanting is only gradual and not yet full; such are some of the possibilities of subtlety of meaning with the English language!
        tekromancr 12y ago
        Ohh, I see the confusion there, but I like the ambiguity it causes. It reminds me of "Pretty little girl's school"
        graycat 12y ago
        I thought of that but regarded 'gradually' as too far, too many words away, from 'get', the word it is modifying.
  - areyousure 12y ago
    No, your parent comment has in fact literally quoted the amendment. For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... you will find the full text as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please be more careful before posting in the future. You may find it interesting to examine the original text of the Bill of Rights, where the first amendment appears as Article the third: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_R... (Article the first has never been ratified. Article the second was ratified in 1992. Articles three through twelve were ratified as the first ten amendments in 1791.)
    - rquantz 12y ago
      Please be more careful before posting in the future. Interestingly, to me at least, I read the quote, and remembered the text with a split infinitive. To check that I was right, I googled the text of the amendment, which google helpfully displayed above the search results. Seeing that I was right, I copied and pasted the text from google into the comment box here. What I did not do was read the whole text that google provided, only the relevant clause. If I had read the whole thing I would have realized it was a paraphrase rather than the actual text. I offer my humblest and deepest possible apologies to the OP, and to you. However, I probably won't be much more careful when posting in the future. I try to keep my statements of fact on HN accurate by checking at least some source. In the end that's as far as I'm going to go.
      - areyousure 12y ago
        Thank you for the explanation of how that came about. Cheers!
veidr 12y ago
It is similar in the USA (the basic right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by the Constitution), but it is not explicit about the details. So various localities have tried to interpret that as meaning 'you have the right to do it if you do X, Y or Z' (such as obtaining a permit in advance, or not being too loud too early in the morning, or not blocking traffic, etc etc etc). In general, you do not need a permit in the USA to hold a protest or demonstration. But in practice, in many cases police will interfere if they want to, leaving it up to courts to decide (much later) if the police actions were permissible under the law. Having a permit in advance will make such police actions less likely. Source: IANAL,BYDNTBAFLTCOBCRILTO
- bthomas 12y ago
  But you don't need to be a fucking lawyer to...?
  - veidr 12y ago
    ...comment on basic civil rights issues like this one. ;-)
    - viewer5 12y ago
      Can't believe bthomas hadn't encountered that abbreviation in the wild before!
- vacri 12y ago
  It certainly isn't explicit, which is why US courts have ruled that while the government can't restrict the content of what you say, they can restrict where and when you say it. 'Where' in the past has included 'somewhere where the target of your protest can't actually notice you'. It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
  - venomsnake 12y ago

Thrymr 12y ago

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" is protected in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The letter writer seems to be referring to the shutting down a public street, which indeed could subject to a permit by a local government (for a protest or a parade).

rquantz 12y ago
You've misquoted the amendment. It is "the right to peaceably assemble." The Constitution was written before the invention of grammar nazis, and before Victorian snobs decided you couldn't split an infinitive verb.
- graycat 12y ago
  The excuse I heard was that an infinitive in English is two words but corresponds to a single word in Latin, and, of course, as all good Latin experts know, English grammar should be as much like Latin as possible! So, since can't split a single word infinitive in Latin, we shouldn't in English! So, "to be" is okay but "to not be" would be bad. "To an infinitive split" would be awful! So, string me up if I were to badly split an infinitive!
  - jcrites 12y ago
    Sometimes it just sounds better. Why it does is an interesting question for linguists. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" "We are determined to completely and utterly eradicate the disease." "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." "Writers should learn to not split infinitives." It's also not always possible to eliminate the split infinitive, or the infinitive, without changing the direct or implied meaning of the sentence. "She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually" works fairly well. "Boldly going where no man has gone before" is close, but doesn't capture the same challenge, summons, call to action as the original. Nor does it sound as pleasing.
    - graycat 12y ago
      For the stuff inside the split infinitive, it can to tough to know where else to put it. So, what would we want? "Boldly to go where ..." or "To go boldly where ..."? To be really clear that 'boldly' modifies 'to go', it's easiest to split the infinitive. Your "She wants to gradually get rid of her teddy bears." is terrific! There's just no good other place to put 'gradually'! In case you misunderstood me, for grammar for English, really I have no sympathy for what the heck Latin did!
      - mrpoptart 12y ago
        > There's just no good other place to put 'gradually'! She wants to get rid of her teddy bears gradually.
        tekromancr 12y ago
        Not an english expert, but would "She wants, gradually, to get rid of her teddy bears" work?
        graycat 12y ago
        Problem is, without thinking about the likely meaning, at first glance it's not clear what 'gradually' modifies, that is, it may modify 'wants', that is, her wanting is only gradual and not yet full; such are some of the possibilities of subtlety of meaning with the English language!
        tekromancr 12y ago
        Ohh, I see the confusion there, but I like the ambiguity it causes. It reminds me of "Pretty little girl's school"
        graycat 12y ago
        I thought of that but regarded 'gradually' as too far, too many words away, from 'get', the word it is modifying.
- areyousure 12y ago
  No, your parent comment has in fact literally quoted the amendment. For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... you will find the full text as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please be more careful before posting in the future. You may find it interesting to examine the original text of the Bill of Rights, where the first amendment appears as Article the third: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_R... (Article the first has never been ratified. Article the second was ratified in 1992. Articles three through twelve were ratified as the first ten amendments in 1791.)
  - rquantz 12y ago
    Please be more careful before posting in the future. Interestingly, to me at least, I read the quote, and remembered the text with a split infinitive. To check that I was right, I googled the text of the amendment, which google helpfully displayed above the search results. Seeing that I was right, I copied and pasted the text from google into the comment box here. What I did not do was read the whole text that google provided, only the relevant clause. If I had read the whole thing I would have realized it was a paraphrase rather than the actual text. I offer my humblest and deepest possible apologies to the OP, and to you. However, I probably won't be much more careful when posting in the future. I try to keep my statements of fact on HN accurate by checking at least some source. In the end that's as far as I'm going to go.
    - areyousure 12y ago
      Thank you for the explanation of how that came about. Cheers!

veidr 12y ago

It is similar in the USA (the basic right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by the Constitution), but it is not explicit about the details. So various localities have tried to interpret that as meaning 'you have the right to do it if you do X, Y or Z' (such as obtaining a permit in advance, or not being too loud too early in the morning, or not blocking traffic, etc etc etc). In general, you do not need a permit in the USA to hold a protest or demonstration. But in practice, in many cases police will interfere if they want to, leaving it up to courts to decide (much later) if the police actions were permissible under the law. Having a permit in advance will make such police actions less likely. Source: IANAL,BYDNTBAFLTCOBCRILTO

bthomas 12y ago
But you don't need to be a fucking lawyer to...?
- veidr 12y ago
  ...comment on basic civil rights issues like this one. ;-)
  - viewer5 12y ago
    Can't believe bthomas hadn't encountered that abbreviation in the wild before!
vacri 12y ago
It certainly isn't explicit, which is why US courts have ruled that while the government can't restrict the content of what you say, they can restrict where and when you say it. 'Where' in the past has included 'somewhere where the target of your protest can't actually notice you'. It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
- venomsnake 12y ago