At what point does &quot;peaceably&quot; in the First Amendment not apply with regard to unlawful assembly? Background In some U.S. States such as New York, there are laws against unlawful assembly like the law described below: 240.10 Unlawful assembly. A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose. Unlawful assembly is a class B misdemeanor. I can see how committing the crimes themselves are, from the view of a common person like me, illegal. But simply assembly seems to push a grey area of the first amendment of the United States Constitution: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. At what point does &quot;peaceably&quot; not apply to an assembly? Maybe in the &quot;clearly comitting a crime&quot; situation I stated above may cross that line. But specifying which kind of speech is threatening would then require dealing with another grey area of the first amendment: abridging freedom of speech. It is this unclear area of assembly that has primed me to ask the question: Question At what point is &quot;peaceably&quot; no longer applicable to an assembly with regard to the &quot;unlawful assembly&quot; laws in the United states?
Overview, reasonable judgement As with the frequently used standard, the &quot;reasonable person&quot;, whether an assembly is &quot;peaceable&quot; or not is a question of judgement. In some cases it is clear. A group throwing stones and Molotov Cocktails at a group of opponents, or at the police, is not acting &quot;peaceably&quot;. What about a group holding signs and chanting &quot;No Justice, no Peace&quot;? Calmly singing 'We Shall Overcome&quot;? In short, there is no bright-line separating &quot;peaceable&quot; from not. It is not like a trespassing case where one either did or did not cross a boundary, or a speeding case where one did or did not go faster than the limit. There are, however, an number of fact patterns in which assembled protesters have been held not to have justified arrest, and various other circumstances in which dispersal and arrests have been held justified. See the cases below. Each person must use judgement as to whether a group's actions are &quot;peaceable&quot; when deciding whether to join or remain a part of such a group. A police official must make a similar judgement when ordering a group to disperse. Later, a court may have to make a similar judgement when deciding whether someone accused of &quot;riot&quot; or &quot;disorderly conduct&quot; was within his or her constitutional rights, or if a police officer acted unconstitutionally. The circumstances and the details of the actions will matter. The right of assembly, like the right of speech is subject to &quot;time, place, and manner&quot; restrictions, so long as such restrictions are content-neutral. See this page from teh Library of Congress To be clear, a police officer's judgement does not make a group's actions constitutional or criminal, that decision is for a court. But an officer must make an on-the-spot judgment as to whether, and if so how, to react to the group's actions. If the court later finds the officer's actions reasonable in light of the specific events and circumstances, it may treat the officer differently than if it finds the LEO actions unreasonable. But my point above was that everyone involved had to make judgements, and that the law expects everyone to act in a &quot;reasonable&quot; manner, and there may be consequences later for those held not to have done so. Selected Cases Shuttlesworth In Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) The US Supreme Court dealt with a case involvign a civil rights protest march. Justice Stewart described the events as follows in the majority opinion: On the afternoon of April 12, Good Friday, 1963, 52 people, all Negroes, were led out of a Birmingham church by three Negro ministers, one of whom was the petitioner, Fred L. Shuttlesworth. They walked in orderly fashion, two abreast for the most part, for four blocks. The purpose of their march was to protest the alleged denial of civil rights to Negroes in the city of Birmingham. The marchers stayed on the sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere with other pedestrians. No automobiles were obstructed, nor were traffic signals disobeyed. The petitioner was with the group for at least part of this time, walking alongside the others, and once moving from the front to the rear. As the marchers moved along, a crowd of spectators fell in behind them at a distance. The spectators at some points spilled out into the street, but the street was not blocked and vehicles were not obstructed. At the end of four blocks, the marchers were stopped by the Birmingham police, and were arrested for violating § 1159 of the General Code of Birmingham. The opinion went on to say: There can be no doubt that the Birmingham ordinance, as it was written, conferred upon the City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any &quot;parade,&quot; &quot;procession,&quot; [Footnote 1] or &quot;demonstration&quot; on the city's streets or public ways. ... This ordinance as it was written, therefore, fell squarely within the ambit of the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional. ... It is argued, however, that what was involved here was not &quot;pure speech,&quot; but the use of public streets and sidewalks, over which a municipality must rightfully exercise a great deal of control in the interest of traffic regulation and public safety. That, of course, is true. We have emphasized before this that &quot;the First and Fourteenth Amendments [do not] afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.&quot; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 ... But our decisions have also made clear that picketing and parading may nonetheless constitute methods of expression, entitled to First Amendment protection. Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88. The Court overturned the conviction of Shuttlesworth. It did not deal with the peacefulness of the march, except in the above quoted description of events, no allegation of violence was made, only of lack of a permit (which had been applied for and refused, with an indication that no permit would ever be granted to that group.) Ward In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) The Copurt held that: even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. (Clark v. Community for Creative NonViolence, 468 U. S. 288) Lest any confusion on the point remain, we reaffirm today that a regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests, but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Ward was a Speech (music) case, not an assembly case, but the standard from Ward has also been applied in assembly cases. Jones Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 56–57 (2d Cir. 2006) was a right-of-assembly case. In it, people were accused of violating the very law (NYS 240.10) mentioned in the question, as well as other NY State laws, including disorderly conduct. The events described produced a whole series of court decisions. The linked opinion is from the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court, but it reviews and quotes many relevant SC rulings. The linked opinion is actually on a claim by various law-enforcement officers (LEOs) for qualified immunity in a suit by people arrested. When it was brought, the various charges against those arrested had already been dismissed or found to be without merit. The Court of Appeals opinion says, in relevant part: The Supreme Court has declared that the First Amendment protects political demonstrations and protests — activities at the heart of what the Bill of Rights was designed to safeguard. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 ... Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that police may not interfere with orderly, nonviolent protests merely because they disagree with the content of the speech or because they simply fear possible disorder. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 ... First Amendment protections, while broad, are not absolute. Regan v. Boogertman, 984 F.2d 577, 579 (2d Cir. 1993) It is axiomatic, for instance, that government officials may stop or disperse public demonstrations or protests where &quot;clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears.&quot; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, (1940). Indeed, where a public gathering threatened to escalate into racial violence and members of a hostile crowd began voicing physical threats, the Supreme Court expressly sanctioned police action that ended the demonstration and arrested the speaker, who defied police orders to cease and desist. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 ... the Supreme Court has long applied the &quot;clear and present danger&quot; test to protest cases to determine when police interference is constitutional. Moreover, although defendants make much of the fact that some demonstrators had allegedly violated the law, transforming the peaceful demonstration into a potentially disruptive one, the Supreme Court has expressly held that &quot; [t]he right to associate does not lose all constitutional protection merely because some members of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrine that itself is not protected.&quot; NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 ... The Supreme Court has already ... made clear that the police may not interfere with demonstrations unless there is a &quot;clear and present danger&quot; of riot, imminent violence, interference with traffic or other immediate threat to public safety. Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 308-309 (finding no imminent violence where anti-Catholic diatribe angered listener and provoked suggestion of violence). Neither energetic, even raucous, protesters who annoy or anger audiences, nor demonstrations that slow traffic or inconvenience pedestrians, justify police stopping or interrupting a public protest. Cox I, 379 U.S. at 546-47, 549 n. 12 (group of protesters who provoked a visceral, angered response and slowed traffic did not jeopardize their speech rights); Edwards, 372 U.S. at 232, 237 (&quot;clear and present danger&quot; means more than annoyance, inviting dispute or slowing traffic). ... Plaintiffs also allege that they made no threats of physical harm to police or members of the public, did not incite violence or disorder and displayed no dangerous weapons. ... We are mindful that the First Amendment does not insulate individuals from criminal sanction merely because they are simultaneously engaged in expressive activity. Section 240.10 of the [NY] Penal Law states that four or more persons assembled for purposes of engaging in violent and tumultuous conduct likely to cause public alarm constitutes an unlawful assemblage. N.Y. Penal Law § 240.10. Conviction under this law requires &quot;an incitement which is both directed towards and likely to produce imminent violent and tumultuous conduct.&quot; Jones, 2005 WL 928667 ... New York courts have interpreted [N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20(5) (disorderly conduct)] to permit punishment only where the conduct at issue does more than merely inconvenience pedestrian or vehicular traffic. People v. Pearl, 66 Misc.2d 502, 321 N.Y.S.2d 986, 987 (1st Dep't 1971) (&quot;Something more than the temporary inconvenience caused to pedestrians by the demonstrators' blocking of the west crosswalk, requiring them to enter the roadway to get to the other side, was required to sustain a conviction for obstructing pedestrian traffic.&quot;); [P]laintiffs had an undeniable right to continue their peaceable protest activities, even when some in the demonstration might have transgressed the law. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 908. Plaintiffs still enjoyed First Amendment protection, and absent imminent harm, the troopers could not simply disperse them without giving fair warning. *City of Chicago v. Morales-, 527 U.S. 41, 58 (&quot;[T]he purpose of the fair notice requirement [in disorderly conduct statutes] is to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law.&quot;); Feiner, 340 U.S. at 321, 71 S. Ct. 303 (finding no First Amendment violation where imminence of disorder was &quot;coupled with petitioner's deliberate defiance of the police&quot; and their orders to disperse) Specific actions Actions that have been held to be permitted as part of a protest or assembly, not justifying police intervention, include: walking in orderly fashion, remaining on the sidewalks except at street intersections, not interfering with other pedestrians or traffic; picketing and parading, even without; a permit when a permit has been improperly denied; orderly, nonviolent protests; A diatribe that angered listeners and provoked suggestion of violence; Energetic, even raucous, protesters who annoy or anger audiences' Demonstrations that slow traffic or inconvenience pedestrians; Peaceable protest activities, even when some in the demonstration might have transgressed the law; Actions that have been held not to be protected thus justifying police intervention, include: Violating a regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech that is narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests; Demonstrations or protests where &quot;clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears.&quot; Where a public gathering threatened to escalate into racial violence and members of a hostile crowd began voicing physical threats; Defying appropriate police orders to cease and desist; Makin threats of physical harm to police or members of the public; Inciting violence or disorder with a direct appeal to imminent lawless action; Imminent disorder when coupled with petitioner's deliberate defiance of the police and their orders to disperse; Summary While there is no single bright line rule on what constitutes &quot;peaceable assembly&quot;, the test for the &quot;clear and present danger&quot; of violence or lawless action seems to come closest. In mot cases police must unless there is an immediate prospect of harm, order an assembly to disperse and give them a reasonable chance to do so before making arrests, particularly forceful arrests. Failure to do so may subject LEOs to personal civil liability.
Trivially, yes The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do. The government can limit your speech The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the First Amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc. They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), &quot;Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.&quot; It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress Which is, in most cases, all government. The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the First Amendment. Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to First Amendment restrictions. It only restricts government The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces. It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
Law The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment): The original ruling is this: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm. Commentary If these instances are correct then it would seem clear that Freedom of Speech is being honored as it's the result of speech, not the speech itself, that could be an offense. You seem to think that it should be illegal, but only if it results in a panic that endangers people. If people ignore you, you think it should be protected by your first amendment rights. That's not how the law works. The law tries, among other things. To establish norms for human behaviour. For example, you will be punished for driving an automobile while intoxicated, even of this does not result in you running over somebody. In the words of the supreme court: If your actions "are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger", the congress has the right to prevent you from doing so, despite the first amendment.
Impeachment In addition to the Constitutional qualifications, one may become ineligible to federal office by being impeached by the House, convicted and removed from office by the Senate, and having the Senate add the &quot;disqualification&quot; term to the sentence. This is surely something done by the legislature but it is not done by passing a law. Criminal Conviction One may also become ineligible by being convicted of treason or insurrection, and possibly other relevant federal offenses. Specific Laws Specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2381 provides that: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2383 provides that: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2385 (originally passed as the Smith Act)provides in relevant part that: Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2387 provides in relevant part that: (a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (a) (1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (a) (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (emphasis added) (See also Chapter 115 which collects these and related sections of title 18.) (See also the Wikipedia article) (See further &quot;A Civilian's Guide to Insurrection Legalese&quot; from The Marshall Project.) Case law In United States v. Burr, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 470 (1807) Chief Justice Marshall wrote an opinion overturning the conviction of Aaron Burr, because Burr was not actually present at the overt act proved, as charged in the indictment. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945) a conviction for treason was overturend because the court held the &quot;overt acts ... as proved were insufficient to support a finding that the accused had given aid and comfort to the enemy&quot; Possible Future laws While treason is defined (or more exactly limited) by the constitution (Article III section 3), nothing in the constitutional provision requires or specifically authorizes that the penalty include ineligibility to office. (It merely says &quot;The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason&quot;.) There is no specific Constitutional authorization for 18 USC 2383, 2385, or 2387, or their penalty sections beyond the general authority of Congress to pass laws and define crimes and their penalties. I am not certain that &quot;employment&quot; in 2385 and 2387 includes elective office, but I suspect it does. 2383 clearly includes elective office. Thus Congress has passed laws, with no specific constitution authorization, that deny people, as punishment for relevant crimes, eligibility to office or employment under the United States. What Congress has done in one case, it could do in another, if it saw fit. Congress could pass a law creating a new offense, or modifying an existing offense, to add the penalty of disqualification. But the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws would mean that such a law would not apply to conduct that occurred before the law was passed or amended. Conviction required Congress may not declare a person guilty of a particular crime; that would be a bill of attainder, which is also specifically prohibited in the Constitution. A criminal conviction by a court is required to trigger the ineligibility provisions of sections 2381, 2383, 2385, 2387, or any similar law. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. This forms another ground whereby an individual can be barred from some federal and state offices, but it is not one that can be invoked by Congress for specific people by name. Indeed it is not clear how it can currently be invoked. This provision requires a judicial determination that it applies to a specific person. From 1868 to 1872 there was a law in force for this purpose, but in 1872 Congress granted a broad amnesty which exempted most of those who would otherwise have been subject to this provision because of the US Civil War, and the law was soon repealed. In the wake of the events of 6 Jan 2021 several bills have been introduced to create ma new enforcement mechanism for this provision. To the best of my knowledge, none have yet been passed into law. See &quot;The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Provision and the Events of Jan. 6&quot; for so9em relevant details and background. That article also says: Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction. A disqualification sentence from the Senate is final and not, for all intents and purposes, subject to judicial review. By contrast, Congress cannot simply declare an official outside of that body ineligible under Section 3 without the concurrence of the courts. To hold otherwise would allow simple majorities in Congress to oust federal and state officials without judicial scrutiny ...
It's less that the first amendment does not apply to minors and more that the first amendment does not apply to the parents' conduct. The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads (emphasis added): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thus the first amendment applies to the conduct of the federal government (and has its reach extended to state governments through Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)). The parents' conduct, while perhaps objectionable morally, does not violate the children's rights under the first amendment, as they are neither the state nor the federal government.
Sometimes rights conflict with each other, and the courts decide which right takes priority. The Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant is entitled to "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". The Fifth Amendment says "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". And the First Amendment gives the right to free speech, which includes the right to not be compelled to speak. If you're on trial and try to get someone else to confess on the stand, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps your Sixth Amendment right to have him testify. But if he couldn't take the fifth (for example, if he had already been acquitted), your Sixth Amendment right would override his First Amendment right to free speech.
An anti-BDS law may be invalid in some circumstances, but this has nothing to do with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Boycotting or not boycotting Israel is not an inherently religious question and isn't justified as such. More often the issues will be pre-emption by a higher level of government's laws, lack of legal authority to enact such a law under an authorizing statute, or possible the &quot;dormant commerce clause.&quot; The linked material in the OP refers to the First Amendment freedom of association and possible the First Amendment freedom to petition, not to the establishment clause.
The NYT article implies that she has used social media in the past to get her victims to believe her fake back story. She is being released from detention, and the restriction on her using social media is not tied to her expressing a particular viewpoint. Courts have repeatedly held that the Government can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest ( U.S. v. O'Brien, 391 US 367 - Supreme Court 1968). One such compelling interest is the effective administration of criminal justice (U.S. v. Spilotro, 786 F. 2d 808 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1986). For instance, speech restrictions can be tied to the purpose of preventing a defendant from committing further crimes while released.