![]() Chief Justice Hughes noted that the statute did not hinder anyone’s religious or political views, only that it granted or denied permits on how and when to properly use its streets. The reason for this was because the state had an interest in regulating the usage of its own streets to protect the safety of its citizens. Chief Justice Hughes, writing for the majority, found that New Hampshire’s statute did not violate the appellants’ rights under the First Amendment. In what was perhaps a surprising turn, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decisions of the lower courts. They decided to appeal their decision to the U.S. The defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, however this Court too upheld their conviction. The state appellate court held a new trial and found the defendants guilty. ![]() Appealįive of the 68 members appealed their convictions, arguing that the statute violated their First Amendment rights to, among other things, assemble peaceably. As a result, police arrested 68 of the marchers, who ultimately received convictions of violating their state’s statute requiring a permit to accompany any parade or procession. While the group had planned their march in advance, they did not seek a permit for the march. They divided into groups, carried signs with both political and religious messages written on them, and distributed pamphlets to passersby, inviting them to attend a talk. Here, a large group of Jehovah’s Witnesses conducted an informational march in July of 1939 in Manchester, New Hampshire. New Hampshire is an example of freedom of assembly coming before the court system. In other words, certain states make protestors seem more dangerous than they are in order to “convince” people not to join the protest and to continue supporting their government.įreedom of Assembly Example Involving Jehovah’s Witnesses Some states exercise restrictions on freedom of assembly that one could consider downright abusive, like misusing measures put in place to deter terrorists or to protect national security. For instance, restrictions on freedom of assembly include some governments censoring or straight-up blocking content on social media in an attempt to suppress protests.Īnd it is not always the federal government placing restrictions on freedom of assembly in some countries, but certain states as well. Restrictions on Freedom of Assemblyĭespite the fact that the First Amendment protects the people’s right to assemble, governments often violate that right as a way to suppress dissent and criticism of the government. The right to assemble and petition, however, only gives people the right to express themselves – it does not guarantee they will get a response from the government they are petitioning. They believed that if they gave people protection under the First Amendment to assemble, the people could then drastically change the American government’s very framework. Interestingly, while the framers of the Constitution were drafting the Bill of Rights, they were more opposed to protecting citizens’ freedom of assembly over their freedom of petition. In recent years, as politics have evolved to allow people to express themselves more democratically, the freedom to protest under the First Amendment has combined, in a way, with freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects several of the American people’s rights, including the right to free speech, the right to freely practice one’s religion and, of course, the freedom of assembly. The government may also impose restrictions on protests that occur near major events that are open to the public. However, while the Constitution prevents the government from outright interfering in the right to peaceful protest, officials can restrict the time, place, and manner of the protest, provided they do so within the confines of the Constitution.įor instance, people can practice their right to peaceful protest so long as they first obtain a permit for the assembly. ![]() Constitution protects the right to peaceful protest. The march became the longest single-day protest in American history, with women assembling to advocate for human rights, including reproductive rights, worker’s rights, and racial equality. The protest was a response to comments Trump had made while on the campaign trail that many believed were anti-woman, or just offensive in general. ![]() Here, women from all across the globe participated in a march to protest the inauguration of President Donald Trump. The difference, however, is that freedom of assembly protects those whom the government believes may “cause trouble” when they get together.Ĭonsider one of the most recent freedom of assembly examples: the women’s march in January of 2017. Hosting a party, having a board game night with the neighbors, or even going to church are all freedom of assembly examples.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |