Freedom Of Assembly Interpretation

Freedom of Assembly Interpretation in the United States

Freedom of Assembly in the United States Interpretation of the Right

Introduction to Freedom of Assembly Interpretation

Like other freedoms, the right to assemble is not absolute. It can be constrained by restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assembly. Thus, it is legitimate for city officials to require parade organizers to obtain a permit, whether the parade is to protest a public policy or to celebrate a holiday. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld laws requiring general permits, as well as prosecutions for illegal demonstrations on courthouse grounds or on school grounds while classes are in session.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of assembly need not be given the same degree of protection as other forms of expression guaranteed in the First Amendment, such as freedom of speech. Although assembly typically involves speech, it also includes conduct-such as gathering in a park or marching down a street. Consequently, officials must balance the right of individuals to express themselves against the need to maintain public order. By ruling that assembly does not qualify as “pure speech”-a category reserved for expressions that require the greatest degree of constitutional protection-the Court has provided officials with greater latitude in regulating public demonstrations.

However, the Court has also made clear that regulation of public assembly must be “content neutral” and must not be used to stifle dissent. Thus, officials may not prevent unpopular groups from gathering based on the nature of the group’s message. For example, in Hague v. C.I.O. (1939), the Court upheld an injunction preventing city officials from interfering with public meetings and distribution of literature by labor organizers. A lower court had granted the injunction after it determined that city officials had arbitrarily denied labor organizers permits for such activities.

Just as government officials may not grant permits to people they favor and deny them for those they do not, officials may not enact restrictions (even if they are content neutral) that make it impossible for most groups to exercise their right to public assembly. In a classic example of this principle, in 1978 a federal appeals court ruled invalid a local ordinance in Skokie, Illinois. The ordinance, enacted in anticipation of a planned march by members of the American Nazi Party, required a prohibitively high cash bond (pledge of money) from any group who wished to march in the city’s streets. The court found that the ordinance inappropriately stifled freedom of assembly by regulating public marches in such a way that it was impossible for any organization to hold any type of demonstration in the city.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

Guide to Freedom of Assembly Interpretation


Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *