The concept is to be able to assemble AND petition the government of grievances. So the government can not arbitrarily keep a lid on issues and dissent. But you have to petition the government for some sort of specific action - not just be an angry, non-cohesive, complaining mob with no real purpose.

 

Putting a lid on corporate greed isn't enough of a reason?

The concept is to be able to assemble AND petition the government of grievances. So the government can not arbitrarily keep a lid on issues and dissent. But you have to petition the government for some sort of specific action - not just be an angry, non-cohesive, complaining mob with no real purpose.

 

What's your reasoning for interpreting it that way?

How many ways can you interpret our Constiutional rights? Assemble peaceably, that seems self-explanatory. There comes a point in time when protesters must cause interuptions to everyday life to draw attention, and people are arrested. Understandable. Just do it peacefully. But it's not subjective...

 

I think it's very subjective, which is why I asked for opinions and have received a diversity of them.

What's your reasoning for interpreting it that way?

 

The history of assembly & petitioning in the United States would be an obvious answer.

I think it's very subjective, which is why I asked for opinions and have received a diversity of them.

 

How many ways can you interpret "assemble peaceably"? The two words speak for themselves.

Edited November 21, 201114 yr by Know It All
contradicted myself

Putting a lid on corporate greed isn't enough of a reason?

 

If you address it seriously. By seriously I mean, well thought out ways to end corporate greed. Not by protesting without a goal or common goal for that matter.

The history of assembly & petitioning in the United States would be an obvious answer.

 

How so? For instance, to my knowledge the Supreme Court has always interpreted the freedom of assembly as distinct from the freedom to petition. Has there ever been a protest or assembly deemed illegal because there was not a specific enough grievance to be petitioned? I'm curious whether Bluegrasscard reached his conclusions due to his interpretation of the semantics of the amendment, history, or his own determination.

How many ways can you interpret "assemble peaceably"? The two words speak for themselves.

 

A plethora of ways. Broadly: Some people have argued that staying in a public area for too long does not constitute peaceable assembly. Some others have argued that annoying the public does not constitute peaceable assembly. Conversely, others have even argued that as long as the assemblers do not riot they are free to protest without government interference.

I'm not sure how it is deemed subjective. Its pretty plain and simple. People have the right to meet and address public issues and to petition for a redress of grievances but it must be done in a peaceful way that does not incite violence and it cannot be used to for illegal activities. States also have the right to regulate assembly but not prohibit it.

I'm not sure how it is deemed subjective. Its pretty plain and simple. People have the right to meet and address public issues and to petition for a redress of grievances but it must be done in a peaceful way that does not incite violence and it cannot be used to for illegal activities. States also have the right to regulate assembly but not prohibit it.

 

Then the violent disbursement and mass arrests of these protesters clearly violates the Constitution, no?

A plethora of ways. Broadly: Some others have argued that annoying the public does not constitute peaceable assembly. Conversely, others have even argued that as long as the assemblers do not riot they are free to protest without government interference.

 

These are not subjective matters. These types of situations have already happened. To the first point, it would be in the same regards as loud music which can be considered a criminal offense. And I have never heard the latter. As long as you do not riot? You are not aloud to do anything illegal and you are not aloud to incite violence.

Then the violent disbursement and mass arrests of these protesters clearly violates the Constitution, no?

 

No. Did you not read the letter I posted from the Chancellor of UC: Davis?

 

However, we also have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe, secure environment without disruption. We take this responsibility seriously. We are accountable for what occurs on our campus. Campus policies generously support free speech, but do include limited time, place and manner regulations to protect health, safety and the ability of students, staff, and faculty to accomplish the University mission. If an unfortunate incident occurs as a result of violations of these limited regulations, we are all responsible.

 

We are aware that many of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus are not members of the UC Davis community. This requires us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff. While we have appreciated the peaceful and respectful tone of the demonstrations to date, the current encampment raises serious health, safety and legal concerns, and the resources we require to supervise this encampment cannot be sustained, especially in these very tight economic times. Our resources must support our core mission to educate all of our students.

 

I must now ask that all tents be peacefully removed by 3:00 p.m. today in the interest of safety, respect for our campus environment and in accordance with our Principles of Community.

 

Apparently they didn't listen. That is why the police came. I will say the police over stepped their boundaries in how they dealt with the situation but the college protesters need to have some accountability as well.

Then the violent disbursement and mass arrests of these protesters clearly violates the Constitution, no?

 

I completely disagreed with how the police handled recent protests. But when you protest and cause an inconvenience to the public (which I justify because they needed the attention) you will/could be arrested.

A plethora of ways. Broadly: Some people have argued that staying in a public area for too long does not constitute peaceable assembly. Some others have argued that annoying the public does not constitute peaceable assembly. Conversely, others have even argued that as long as the assemblers do not riot they are free to protest without government interference.

 

Habib, what is your interpretation of peaceable assembly?

^This should be fun ...