The Right to Assemble

[New Zacharianasville]

A few days ago, a couple of my friends and I were arguing over the right to assemble. Myself and one of my friends agreed that everyone has the right to assemble so long as they are legal/law abiding groups, and not harming anyone. My other friend said that certain radical fringe groups and ideologies should not have the right to do so, even if they are law abiding and not hurting anyone. Who do you think should have the right to assemble?

[Kravanica]

Yes, right to assembly is an important fundamental right.

[MERIZoC]

Law be damned. If nobody is being hurt or threatened, no problem with it.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes, I fully support the right to peaceably assemble, and I condemn and have a lot of disdain for violent protest.

[The United States of the South Pole]

I disagree, I've seen an awful lot of Illegal Immigrant assemblies in new jersey claiming that they deserve the right to vote. I'd personally liked a no tolerance policy for them, but otherwise I'd actually like to see some more lineage on how much has to be done for a protest to be considered violent.

[Eol Sha]

A few days ago, a couple of my friends and I were arguing over the right to assemble. Myself and one of my friends agreed that everyone has the right to assemble so long as they are legal/law abiding groups, and not harming anyone. My other friend said that certain radical fringe groups and ideologies should not have the right to do so, even if they are law abiding and not hurting anyone. Who do you think should have the right to assemble?

So long as they're peaceful I think everyone should have the right and freedom to assemble, protest, hunger strike, whatever. Regardless of your ideology. Restricting the right to assemble is the action of people who are afraid of different ideas and beliefs.

[Linux and the X]

Even douchebags have a right to assemble. The rest of us also have a right to assemble and tell them they're douchebags.

[ChicagoBoys]

Yes, everyone has a right to assemble. Even the crazy fringe groups like Westboro Baptists and feminists. As long as they are not damaging the area on purpose or being violent they have that right. If they are making a scene then they should recieve a warning, barring that said scene isn't violent, before any action is taken

[Eol Sha]

Yes, everyone has a right to assemble. Even the crazy fringe groups like Westboro Baptists and feminists. As long as they are not damaging the area on purpose or being violent they have that right. If they are making a scene then they should recieve a warning, barring that said scene isn't violent, before any action is taken

What qualifies as "making a scene"? I ask because the point of protesting, at least, is to make a scene.

[Hladgos]

Age groups 1-99+ have a right to build LEGOs anywhere in America because it allows for them to pursue their happiness.

[ChicagoBoys]

Yes, everyone has a right to assemble. Even the crazy fringe groups like Westboro Baptists and feminists. As long as they are not damaging the area on purpose or being violent they have that right. If they are making a scene then they should recieve a warning, barring that said scene isn't violent, before any action is taken

What qualifies as "making a scene"? I ask because the point of protesting, at least, is to make a scene.

Taunting bystanders, threats, things like that

[Eol Sha]

What qualifies as "making a scene"? I ask because the point of protesting, at least, is to make a scene.

Taunting bystanders, threats, things like that

Personally, I'd make a distinction between the two. Threatening someone should, obviously be a crime, but taunting bystanders? Meh. If they aren't hurting anyone then no need to arrest them or force a protest to disperse.

[HMS Vanguard]

Everyone has a right to assemble with the permission of the land owner. No one has a right to obstruct public streets.

[ChicagoBoys]

Taunting bystanders, threats, things like that

Personally, I'd make a distinction between the two. Threatening someone should, obviously be a crime, but taunting bystanders? Meh. If they aren't hurting anyone then no need to arrest them or force a protest to disperse.

Yeah, that's why I said it warrented a warning. After that if it continues action may be necessary as trying to enrage bystanders repeatedly is a bit much

[Lautrec-]

Everyone should have the right to assemble, including radical groups

Only dictatorships would deprive people from that right

[Crockerland]

I disagree, I've seen an awful lot of Illegal Immigrant assemblies in new jersey claiming that they deserve the right to vote. I'd personally liked a no tolerance policy for them, but otherwise I'd actually like to see some more lineage on how much has to be done for a protest to be considered violent.

That has nothing to do with their right to assemble, just their nonright to be in America.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It really depends. The European Court for Human Rights has some interesting rulings on the subject, making a fine line between who as the right to assemble and when that right can be deprived. Don't forget, the right to assemble doesn't only include the right to discuss an idea in a secluded environment. The right to assemble also applies to political organisations and pressure groups. It's not just the right to physically assemble in a place, it's also the right to legally assemble.

Take, for example, the Welfare Party of Turkey. In 1998, following an election victory and a military coup, this far-right Islamist party was banned in Turkey. While they won an election victory, and while they technically didn't do anything illegal, their platform was based around the dismemberment of all other rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, they were pro-discrimination (mostly on the basis of sex), and they weren't such big supporters of freedom of religion. Therefore, the European Court ruled that violating their right to assemble was in accordance with the principles of a democratic society.

Tl;Dr: Don't be too quick to judge whether an assembly is really peaceful and without damage. Indirect damage is also damage, after all. There needs to be a thin line, and reality resists a simple one-sentence ideology in thus matter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Law be damned. If nobody is being hurt or threatened, no problem with it.

This^

[Lady Scylla]

As long as they're not engaging in, or promoting violence, inciting an insurrection, or blocking public works such as highways - let them assemble peacebly.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I disagree, I've seen an awful lot of Illegal Immigrant assemblies in new jersey claiming that they deserve the right to vote. I'd personally liked a no tolerance policy for them, but otherwise I'd actually like to see some more lineage on how much has to be done for a protest to be considered violent.

That has nothing to do with their right to assemble, just their nonright to be in America.

Should illegal immigrants not have the right to assemble per definition? How does the legality of their stay affect their rights to assemble?

[Lady Scylla]

That has nothing to do with their right to assemble, just their nonright to be in America.

Should illegal immigrants not have the right to assemble per definition? How does the legality of their stay affect their rights to assemble?

They can assemble. As long as youre within US borders, youre guaranteed the same rights as everyone, illegal or legal.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's of little consequence these days, as the government can simply astroturf people to shriek and whine about how your assembly is offensive and petition the venue its in to shut it down, and media pressure will do the rest.

The right to assemble means very little unless you ban the government from funding any political activities like that. In fact, it serves as a smokescreen by which your lack of power to assemble with your fellow citizens can be ignored or covered up under the guise of "It's not the government doing it."

Which is preferable, the "right to assemble" where a government can have you shut down through pressuring private interests while sneering that your rights are protected and trumpeting about how free everyone is, or a more honest form of dictatorship and control? A dictator might crack down more often, but that's only out of necessity from the abuse of power being laid bare causing more unrest. The sinister nature of the western system is that they don't need to crack down because you're duped into following along with it.

The right to assemble as it is currently constituted is a marketing ploy, nothing more. It exists to sell you on the idea that you are free to assemble, when really that's up to powerful interests to decide.

It's as useless as "The right to vote" when all of the choices are essentially the same. A lot of the rights in the west are now just smokescreens and ways to deflect criticism from the ruling class.

Unless the government is anemically small, rights mean very little, they'll find a way around them.

More important than the right to assemble is the ability to assemble.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Should illegal immigrants not have the right to assemble per definition? How does the legality of their stay affect their rights to assemble?

They can assemble. As long as youre within US borders, youre guaranteed the same rights as everyone, illegal or legal.

Aye, they can, and that's how it should work. I was asking if the person had any arguments against that system.

[Crockerland]

That has nothing to do with their right to assemble, just their nonright to be in America.

Should illegal immigrants not have the right to assemble per definition? How does the legality of their stay affect their rights to assemble?

As I just said, it has nothing to do with their right to assemble. If a demonstration is held by illegal aliens, they can be detained and deported, they are not protected from the law by the freedom to assemble.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Should illegal immigrants not have the right to assemble per definition? How does the legality of their stay affect their rights to assemble?

As I just said, it has nothing to do with their right to assemble. If a demonstration is held by illegal aliens, they can be detained and deported, they are not protected from the law by the freedom to assemble.

Well, that's actually an interesting proposition. I beg to differ: if illegal aliens are using their right to protest, and their right to peacefully assemble, then they should be momentarily exempt for the duration of their assembly, for as long as reason deems it necessary. Arresting illegal aliens because they happen to be illegal comes awfully close to arresting protesters for disturbances of the peace.