The Right to Assemble, or Not

[Perianne]

The first amendment to the Constitution states this:

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 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.

The part I want to discuss is this:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

The Constitution does not address where, or how limited an area, the people have the right to assemble. Should this right also extend to the exclusion of those who do not fit into the pre-defined purpose of the assemblance? If not, why not?

[fj1200]

The Constitution does not address where, or how limited an area, the people have the right to assemble. Should this right also extend to the exclusion of those who do not fit into the pre-defined purpose of the assemblance? If not, why not?


Ward v. Rock Against Racism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_v._Rock_Against_Racism)(1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must:[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#cite_note-12)

Be content neutral
Be narrowly tailored
Serve a significant governmental interest
Leave open ample alternative channels for communication


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time.2C_pla ce.2C_and_manner_restrictions


The Supreme Court confronted the right to petition and its cognate, the right of assembly, in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), declaring that the right was "an attribute of national citizenship." In Hague v. CIO (1939), members of the Court debated whether the right as applied against states resided in the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause or, as later cases concluded, in the amendment's Due Process Clause. The rights to petition and to peaceable assembly were also crucial in persuading the Supreme Court to hold that the First Amendment implicitly contains a right to expressive association, that is, a right to associate to engage in the activities protected by the First Amendment. The right of expressive association protected civil rights protesters from hostile state action in the 1950s and 1960s, and, after the Court's 2000 decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, also protects private groups that wish to promote traditional ideals and values. To a large extent, then, the rights to petition and peaceable assembly have found their modern home in the right to expressive association.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/141/freedom-of-assembly-and-petition

Who do you want to keep out?

[Perianne]

Who do you want to keep out?

The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?

[Kathianne]

The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?

No. No more than the KKK could keep the Jews from protesting one of their rallies or parades.

[NightTrain]

I'm in favor of using water cannons on hippie gatherings. Unwashed masses in a small area is a health hazard and a little water at 400 PSI will do all of them good.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8368&stc=1

Plus, there's the additional economical benefit of keeping those police riot trucks clean.


Okay, I'm done being a smartass. For now.

[Perianne]

No. No more than the KKK could keep the Jews from protesting one of their rallies or parades.

I am not saying about what they could do, I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do. While the despicable Westboro Baptist Church has the "right" to protest military funerals, I am just not sure they should be able to do it. I suspect 150 years ago they would not have come away alive by such actions. The U.S. Constitution was essentially the same then as it is now, so why have things changed?

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), please weigh in as your country has also changed.

[fj1200]

The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?

You asked a Constitution question and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Nevertheless I assume these folks have some control over who they let live there.

Masada II Condo Corp (http://condominiums-and-townhouses.cmac.ws/masada-ii-condo-corp/2660/)
Who do you want to keep out?

[Perianne]

You asked a Constitution question and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Nevertheless I assume these folks have some control over who they let live there.

Masada II Condo Corp (http://condominiums-and-townhouses.cmac.ws/masada-ii-condo-corp/2660/)


Who do you want to keep out?

Quit trying to bait me, sir. I don't want to keep any good people "out".

[fj1200]

Quit trying to bait me, sir. I don't want to keep any good people "out".

It's a simple question inquiring as to the basis for your question.


... I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do.

[Kathianne]

I am not saying about what they could do, I am asking opinions about what they should be able to do. While the despicable Westboro Baptist Church has the "right" to protest military funerals, I am just not sure they should be able to do it. I suspect 150 years ago they would not have come away alive by such actions. The U.S. Constitution was essentially the same then as it is now, so why have things changed?

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), please weigh in as your country has also changed.

Personally believe that following the Constitution is a very good idea. You posted the first amendment, one that doesn't require a JD degree to understand.

In no way does exercising one's rights guarantee that there will not be repercussions when unpopular. I'm pretty certain that flag burners have been roughed up and the attackers given warnings or very minimum punishments. To a real degree, the consequences depend on the community and the ideas/actions brought to bear.

[Drummond]

The links you provided were to SCOTUS rulings. But of course I suppose that is all we have to go by, or rather, it is what we have to live by.

Let us say a group of Jews are wanting to assemble a neighborhood that promotes their values and lifestyles. Should they not be able to prevent racist White Nationalists from joining their neighborhood?

I'm tempted to get involved in this discussion, so I will. However .. I'm on shaky ground. You're discussing your Constitution, and as I'm British, I won't have the familiarity with this that Americans would have. So I believe I don't have a great deal of substance to offer on this particular occasion.

But I think that it might be appropriate to offer a note of caution.

Who it is who constitutes 'good people' is, arguably, in the eye of the beholder. Some neighbourhoods would consider Muslims 'good people' .. especially Lefties, who are hell-bent on being as politically correct as possible, AND ensuring that everybody else is, too.

I think that an argument saying that Jews should be allowed to assemble a neighbourhood that promotes their values and lifestyles, and have any powers of exclusion at all ... is one setting a precedent that opens the door for Muslims to do exactly the same. Indeed .. over here in the UK, we already have Muslim communities where this has effectively happened.

It isn't that any Muslim community, here, has any actual power to actually 'exclude' anybody .. but, there are shades of grey involved. Any such community can ensure that conditions apply which would make any 'outsider' trying to move in as being certifiably nuts ...

So, no, Perianne. Your proposal sets a precedent that, I assure you, Muslims wouldn't hesitate to exploit for themselves. To what extent ?

As for FJ's baiting, and his question of who you'd want to keep out .. I take it that this is FJ exercising a bit of Leftie-inspired PC thinking, and insisting that it becomes dominant in this discussion ?

Can't have even the possibility come about of anyone thinking in an unapproved-of way, eh, FJ, 'old chum' .. ??

[Perianne]

So, no, Perianne. Your proposal sets a precedent that, I assure you, Muslims wouldn't hesitate to exploit for themselves. To what extent ?


I must ask why you think it would be a bad thing for them to pack themselves away into a rat hole somewhere? Drummond

[Kathianne]

I'm wondering if the OP recognized the semi-colons between each right?



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 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.

The right to 'assemble' is regarding the ability to do so and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

They didn't include this in the Bill of Rights for securing the rights just for getting together for a barn raising or family picnic. They weren't concerned that the government would step in to prevent them from meeting for a dance or school or gathering crops.

They were concerned that the government might step in to prevent them from meeting to discuss or plan issues they disagreed with regarding problems or disagreements between themselves and the government.

That is where the right to march, protest, etc comes in. That is one reason the first is so important.

It should not be confused with some way to justify segregation.

[Drummond]

I must ask why you think it would be a bad thing for them to pack themselves away into a rat hole somewhere? @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)
Perianne .. I don't believe I said that it would be ??

Our experience is that Muslims move into a neighbourhood, then proceed to 'dominate' it. Mosques spring up. You might get a Sharia court thrown in for good measure. The local shops get bought up, either by Muslims, or those seeing an opportunity to cater to their needs. Before you know where you are, they're aiming to make themselves THE dominant influence in the area they've chosen for themselves. We've even had instances of posters springing up, declaring an area a 'Sharia Controlled Zone' (even though, legally, nobody is permitted to create such a thing).

Oh, and in Birmingham, they tried to take over some of the schools in that city.

I'm not aware that they've ever moved to a 'rat hole', or that there's ever been a likelihood of it. They're way too ambitious for that. [Though they may well want that for everyone else, maybe with wall to wall bombs ....]

As an aside .. the BBC made a big thing, just days ago, of - as they claimed - 'Mosques opening their doors to outsiders'. Apparently, if I recall correctly, this is a phenomenon that Muslims indulge in, once a year.

So, according to the story, double the number opened up to outsiders this year, than previously. An estimated NINETY mosques in the UK, in fact.

That's out of (another estimate, because, who can keep up with these things ?) around ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY OF THEM, IN TOTAL.

'Impressive', eh ..?

[Kathianne]

I don't believe I said that it would be ??

Our experience is that Muslims move into a neighbourhood, then proceed to 'dominate' it. Mosques spring up. You might get a Sharia court thrown in for good measure. The local shops get bought up, either by Muslims, or those seeing an opportunity to cater to their needs. Before you know where you are, they're aiming to make themselves THE dominant influence in the area they've chosen for themselves. We've even had instances of posters springing up, declaring an area a 'Sharia Controlled Zone' (even though, legally, nobody is permitted to create such a thing).

Oh, and in Birmingham, they tried to take over some of the schools in that city.

I'm not aware that they've ever moved to a 'rat hole'. They're way too ambitious for that. [Though they may well want that for everyone else ....]

We agree on this. The whole concept of 'no go' areas is a result of the allowing of this segregation.

[Drummond]

We agree on this. The whole concept of 'no go' areas is a result of the allowing of this segregation.

I've a funny feeling we agree on remarkably little (such as my own politics, for example ??). So I suggest that you make the most of it.

[Kathianne]

I've a funny feeling we agree on remarkably little (such as my own politics, for example ??). So I suggest that you make the most of it.

Wow, two things in one evening! Surely you recognize the mutual admiration.

[Perianne]

I've a funny feeling we agree on remarkably little (such as my own politics, for example ??). So I suggest that you make the most of it.

I am continuing to think about this issue. I will get back on it later.

[Drummond]

Wow, two things in one evening! Surely you recognize the mutual admiration.

I'm perfectly prepared to recognise your sense of humour, which is currently enjoying its sense of the absurd ....

[Perianne]

We agree on this. The whole concept of 'no go' areas is a result of the allowing of this segregation.

You mean the "allowing" of people who want to live together to actually be able to do it? Are you saying the government should prevent folks of like minds to actually control who lives among them?

[Kathianne]

You mean the "allowing" of people who want to live together to actually be able to do it? Are you saying the government should prevent folks of like minds to actually control who lives among them?


All are protected to own property-where they wish and can afford. Strange concept, eh?

[Perianne]

All are protected to own property-where they wish and can afford. Strange concept, eh?

You are making good points and causing me to think more about this.

[fj1200]

I'm wondering if the OP recognized the semi-colons between each right?

I think Freedom of Association is more the way this thread is going.

[aboutime]

You are making good points and causing me to think more about this.


Perianne. Based on your question. Would living in a GATED COMMUNITY violate the 1st amendment?

Something to think about. Much like WHY some people choose NOT to go into a well known, very expensive restaurant, or big name Department store. See the difference????

[revelarts]

Look this question only comes up as far as race goes.
so @Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) will you address my Fantasy question.


wild hypotheticals. Just a twist on an old idea.
What if all the races went back to their home contents and HAD to STAY THERE exclusively. ZERO travel, ZERO immigration, ZERO Trade. NONE. Each area had to be COMPLETELY self suffient. ZERO war between continents allow, only within your boarders with those of your on race/culture.

Would many look favorably of that kind of arrangement? If it were really possible.

Mixed Raced people's or folks that like "race mixing" or just don't have deep "concerns" about living together with other races (or "cultures") could be granted a homeland. Maybe New Zealand. All the aboriginal people from there can go live in Australia with the other native Australians, NO other races.

So North and South America would go back to the Native Americans.
Asia would be exclusively Asian.
the middle east would be exclusively Middle Eastern --Arab and Persian--.
Israel exclusively Jewish .(all Jews from around the world would have to move to Israel, all other races gone. a WALL around the nation.)
Kurds get a homeland too.
Africa would be exclusively African.
Europe would be exclusively White European.


Would you more be happy then, and not so "concerned" about all the other races and religions that constantly threaten to wipe us out of existance?
Would the world be a better place?

[Perianne]

Look this question only comes up as far as race goes.
so @Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) will you address my Fantasy question.


wild hypotheticals. Just a twist on an old idea.
What if all the races went back to their home contents and HAD to STAY THERE exclusively. ZERO travel, ZERO immigration, ZERO Trade. NONE. Each area had to be COMPLETELY self suffient. ZERO war between continents allow, only within your boarders with those of your on race/culture.

Would many look favorably of that kind of arrangement? If it were really possible.

Mixed Raced people's or folks that like "race mixing" or just don't have deep "concerns" about living together with other races (or "cultures") could be granted a homeland. Maybe New Zealand. All the aboriginal people from there can go live in Australia with the other native Australians, NO other races.

So North and South America would go back to the Native Americans.
Asia would be exclusively Asian.
the middle east would be exclusively Middle Eastern --Arab and Persian--.
Israel exclusively Jewish .(all Jews from around the world would have to move to Israel, all other races gone. a WALL around the nation.)
Kurds get a homeland too.
Africa would be exclusively African.
Europe would be exclusively White European.


Would you more be happy then, and not so "concerned" about all the other races and religions that constantly threaten to wipe us out of existance?
Would the world be a better place?

Pursuant to an earlier agreement, I will not discuss race. Sorry, revelarts.

FWIW, I have inquired into returning to Finland. But my daughter won't go. Otherwise I would already have left.

[Drummond]

Look this question only comes up as far as race goes.
so @Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) will you address my Fantasy question.


wild hypotheticals. Just a twist on an old idea.
What if all the races went back to their home contents and HAD to STAY THERE exclusively. ZERO travel, ZERO immigration, ZERO Trade. NONE. Each area had to be COMPLETELY self suffient. ZERO war between continents allow, only within your boarders with those of your on race/culture.

Would many look favorably of that kind of arrangement? If it were really possible.

Mixed Raced people's or folks that like "race mixing" or just don't have deep "concerns" about living together with other races (or "cultures") could be granted a homeland. Maybe New Zealand. All the aboriginal people from there can go live in Australia with the other native Australians, NO other races.

So North and South America would go back to the Native Americans.
Asia would be exclusively Asian.
the middle east would be exclusively Middle Eastern --Arab and Persian--.
Israel exclusively Jewish .(all Jews from around the world would have to move to Israel, all other races gone. a WALL around the nation.)
Kurds get a homeland too.
Africa would be exclusively African.
Europe would be exclusively White European.


Would you more be happy then, and not so "concerned" about all the other races and religions that constantly threaten to wipe us out of existance?
Would the world be a better place?

Perianne has a point .. you're trying to polarise this into a purely race argument. I, too, will not be drawn down that path. 'Sorry'.

I do have one observation to make, though ... any propositions enacted in Britain remotely resembling the argument you're pushing, would see the UK's NHS system (be it Scottish, English, Welsh ..) collapse at a stroke. The UK Government, in order to keep our NHS going, has had to take from countries clear across the world for its manpower !

Such is the ultimate unworkability of a State-run NHS-style system, because how many countries could hope to copy us in that, to make THEIR versions of it work ??:laugh: