The Right to Assemble

[Linux and the X]

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.

Don't cut yourself on that edge there.

[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.

Don't cut yourself on that edge there.

What use is a right without the ability to utilize it?

[Crockerland]

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.

Okay, then arrest them as soon as they cease protesting, and immediately arrest any aliens that try to leave early in hopes of avoiding the law.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

Okay, then arrest them as soon as they cease protesting, and immediately arrest any aliens that try to leave early in hopes of avoiding the law.

Well, it's also very questionable whether you can detain an illegal immigrant and deport him immediately, or if you can hold him for extended periods of time. After all, he's just there illegally, he hasn't broken any penal law (not per definition, at least). Someone's family life should also be respected, as well as someone's property rights. Simple immediate detention is too simple an answer, I believe.

[Crockerland]

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.

Don't cut yourself on that edge there.

Make sure you don't type "BLUE LIVES MURDER" in your signature if you intend to call others edgy.

[Lady Scylla]

Okay, then arrest them as soon as they cease protesting, and immediately arrest any aliens that try to leave early in hopes of avoiding the law.

Well, it's also very questionable whether you can detain an illegal immigrant and deport him immediately, or if you can hold him for extended periods of time. After all, he's just there illegally, he hasn't broken any penal law (not per definition, at least). Someone's family life should also be respected, as well as someone's property rights. Simple immediate detention is too simple an answer, I believe.

They dont deport them immediately. They're detained and transferred to a holding and processing facility where they will stay until the paperwork is filed.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

You've basically painted the picture of the 'negative right', the right to have a government not interfere, and the 'positive right', which requires government action. If you want your positive rights respected, it's not less government you should be asking for. A bigger respect for positive rights comes almost automatically with a bigger government, responsible for more actions.

[Lydenburg]

As long as the assembly does not disrupt others or pose a definite threat to public safety (ie an assembly involving lots of weapons) I see no reason why the act of assembly in of itself shouldn't be a fundamental right for any democratic nation.

[Reti]

Of course, this is a Constitutional right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.