@whodey saidThere is no "hysteria". Laws restricting assembly and establishing quarantines were typical in the colonies even before the creation of the United States:
With the Covid hysteria, when should our first amendment right to assemble be infringed upon?
"Colonial American quarantine law began in 1663, when New York restricted entrance to the city attempting to curb an outbreak of smallpox. In the 1730s, officials built a quarantine station on Bedloe's Island in New York Harbor. The Philadelphia Lazaretto was built in response to the devastating yellow fever epidemics of the 1790s. These outbreaks were so severe, they temporarily drove the national government out of Philadelphia, then the nation's capital."
https://www.ushistory.org/laz/history/index.htm
An analysis in Reason. a right wing libertarian magazine:
"In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.
Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith."
https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these-churches-refuse-to-close-over-covid-19-does-the-constitution-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/?itm_source=parsely-api
A New Hampshire court yesterday upheld a ban on gatherings of more than 50 and a closing of sit down service in bars and restaurants:
"Multiple jurisdictions have contemplated the executive's authority to suspend or infringe upon certain civil liberties during states of emergency. See Smith v. Avino, 91 F.3d 105, 109 (11th Cir. 1996) ("In an emergency situation, fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended."😉; United States v. Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277, 1280 (4th Cir. 1971) ("The invocation of emergency powers necessarily restricts activities that would normally be constitutionally protected."😉; In re Juan C., 33 Cal. Rptr.2d 919, 922 (Ct. App. 1994) ("An inherent tension exists between the exercise of First Amendment rights and the government's need to maintain order during a period of social strife. The desire for free and unfettered discussion and movement must be balanced against the desire to protect and preserve life and property from destruction."😉; ACLU of W. Tenn., Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F. Supp 456, 460 (W.D. Tenn. 1978) (explaining that the governor has the authority to impose "limitation on the exercise of [First Amendment rights] only in very unusual circumstances were extreme action is necessary to protect the public from immediate and grave danger"😉."
https://reason.com/2020/03/26/n-h-court-rejects-challenge-to-ban-on-gatherings-of-50-or-more-people/#more-8053523
@suzianne saidIs dying a reason to prevent First Amendment rights?
When people start dying because of it.
Just imagine if no one was allowed to ever assemble. Imagine all the auto fatalities you could prevent.
In fact, lock us all in jail cells and ensure that we are safe and no one dies in an auto accident.
What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"?
@whodey saidWhat do you find objectionable about this Court's standard:
Is dying a reason to prevent First Amendment rights?
Just imagine if no one was allowed to ever assemble. Imagine all the auto fatalities you could prevent.
In fact, lock us all in jail cells and ensure that we are safe and no one dies in an auto accident.
What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"?
"ACLU of W. Tenn., Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F. Supp 456, 460 (W.D. Tenn. 1978) (explaining that the governor has the authority to impose "limitation on the exercise of [First Amendment rights] only in very unusual circumstances were extreme action is necessary to protect the public from immediate and grave danger"?
@no1marauder saidNo.1, what, in you opinion, makes Reason 'right wing'?
There is no "hysteria". Laws restricting assembly and establishing quarantines were typical in the colonies even before the creation of the United States:
"Colonial American quarantine law began in 1663, when New York restricted entrance to the city attempting to curb an outbreak of smallpox. In the 1730s, officials built a quarantine station on Bedloe's Island in New ...[text shortened]... close-over-covid-19-does-the-constitution-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/?itm_source=parsely-api
@wajoma saidIts laissez faire orientation.
No.1, what, in you opinion, makes Reason 'right wing'?
Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell used to be regular contributors and the present editors are all dyed in the wool defenders of minimally regulated capitalism. Since that position serves the elites in the United States and opposes progressive change, it is a right wing position in 21st Century America.