0

A friend of mine proposed that a law, imposing a curfew for juveniles on public streets/spaces violates a first amendment right to assemble. What are some arguments against this?

  • The short answer is that courts have considered the question and found otherwise, which is why curfews for juveniles are routine. If I have time, I'll find some citations. – ohwilleke Jul 25 '17 at 23:41
1

As long as it's related to place and time, the state can ban assemblies. If it has to do with content / point of view, then it's a violation. It's why cities can say you can protest here, not there. But can't say this group can protest, that one can't.

  • Isn't that just saying First Amendment be damned? The 1st doesn't say anything about specifically "to express a particular viewpoint". – user6726 Jul 25 '17 at 23:09
  • 1
    Precisely. They can't stop you due to your viewpoints. But, due to reasons mostly related to public safety they certainly can restrict where and when people assemble – A.fm. Jul 25 '17 at 23:16
  • 1
    Precisely to the latter part of your message, not the first amendment be damned part! – A.fm. Jul 25 '17 at 23:19
  • I don't see how that relates to your answer. Something is missing from your answer. – user6726 Jul 26 '17 at 0:46
  • Why? I'll clarify if you tell me what yo udon't get. I'm saying that the government may restrict your assembly if the government is doing so based upon the time or the place you are attempting to hold your assembly. That's a neutral reason, usually based on public safety. On the other hand, the government4 may not restrict your assembly because you're seeking to assemble to support X politician or Y cause. That's because doing so would inherently be government support for one side or another of an issue or person. – A.fm. Jul 26 '17 at 1:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.