Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of assembly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Those working on this article might want to look at Jim Hightower's very interesting article "Bush Zones Go National" in The Nation (August 16/23, 2004). It's a partisan piece, of course, but it looks rather well researched. -- Jmabel 19:37, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation is Needed

[edit]

Freedom of Assembly is a Constitutional Right recognized in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom: assembly vs. association

[edit]

I am not a lawyer, and I am suspicious whether Freedom of assembly and Freedom of association are one and the same thing. If they are, then the articles must be merged. If they are not, the distinction must be clarified somewhere for ignoramuses like me. Mikkalai 19:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but I've always associated freedom of assembly with the right to gather physically in one place and freedom of association with the right to communicate and to organize into groups. Yes, it would be good to get an expert to sort this out, because that's not what our articles now say. -- Jmabel|Talk 20:27, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
This is a very late reply, but for the record freedom of assembly and freedom of association are very different concepts. The first is about the right of people to get together in the same place, the second is about membership in organizations. --PullUpYourSocks 14:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make the difference more clear. The truth is that different national jurisdictions and to some extent human rights instruments have or are understood to have a different interpretation of freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Hope what i have done makes sense. there is also a fluent line between freedom of assembly and the right to protest (see wikiarticle). --SasiSasi (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means

[edit]

"Freedom of assembly is a key right in democratic countries, as it allows its citizens to form or join any political party, special interest group, or union, without any government restrictions."

There are a lot of assumptions built into this statement, especially with the implied distinction between "key" rights and not-so-key rights. What would be an example of a non-key right? that would still BE a right, rather than a privilege etc.? --Christofurio 00:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tiered rights

[edit]

This tiered rights section is incredibly confusing. It should at least refer to what country is it talking about. --PullUpYourSocks 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Groups of a State, Country, or Nation

[edit]

To answer the top three statements made above, I shall type each one out in short say.

The Freedom of Assembly is a gathering or large meeting where people of the common day or everyday join together to talk of ideas or plans for the future.

The Freedom of Association is a banquet where people of both civil and military matter come to together. A place where people association and get to know each other to see if their operations can be joined together.

Now the actually meaning of the Freedom of Assembly means the somethin similiar, I believe, to a protest when the people of a state, country, or nation feel as if they are not being heard. The only time this freedom is performed is when the people feel as if their own government is not doing their job or if their leader is not doing as he/she promised.

More or less, the Freedom of Assembly or of Association means two different things in a way, but they are both similiar when it involves members of union or political party that has its concerns for the future of its own estate. (I hope that sums up the statements.) --Zhang Liao 04:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link "Repression Against the IWW in the United States" was removed as "irrelevant". I'm not sure it's quite sufficiently focused on this topic to belong here, but it is certainly at least moderately relevant: it is largely about an situation in which the U.S. failed to grant freedom of assembly, essentially banning gatherings because of who was gathering. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freedom of assembly should be okay but its not to some people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.179.162 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right of Assembly no longer applies? Really??!

[edit]

The article now ends " Due to the recent signing of the anti-protest trespass bill, the right to assemble no longer applies".

I wouldn't be surprised if this is buried in some legislation or a somewhat accurate statement as a practical matter (e.g., free speech protest areas at national conventions, limitations on Zuccotti Park protests mentioned in New York Times on 3/20/12), but is there really an "anti-protest trespass bill" that negates the First Amendment Constitutional right?

Shouldn't there be a link or citation if there is.

This sounds like hyperbole or sarcasm.

Jrlebowitz (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should an Occupy poster be a main illustration?

[edit]

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but it strikes me that the image of an "Occupy" poster might violate NPOV. This wouldn't be an issue, except freedom of assembly as it relates to the Occupy movement is a somewhat controversial topic (which is not the case for generic strike protests, the subject of the other image on this page). Because it is controversial, it seems inappropriate it be included as only a caption. I believe it should either be addressed in the text with a neutral examination of the issue (if it is deemed significant enough), or otherwise the image should be removed. As it is, it gives the impression someone is trying to "sneak" it in. Personally, I'd argue for the latter approach. I contend that any appearance here has undue weight given the short length of this page, the international context of this page, and the fact that the Occupy movement was a short-lived, contemporary event relative to the inveterate nature of this freedom. Perhaps it would be better addressed (again, with text) in the main article on the First Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.4 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of assembly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_assembly&oldid=1204622501"