Freedom of Speech Is Superior to Freedom of Assembly

My opponent"s case: My opponent says the problem with my arguments is that I am not acknowledging the right of the person who chooses to accept the offer to assemble and that people are assembling unwillingly due to the right of free speech of the other party. I must then pose the question to my voters, how does someone unwillingly rally to achieve a common goal? My opponent is still mistaking the definition of assemble. Under this mistaken definition my opponent has presented me with a few sources. Let me deconstruct each one for you. Source Numero Uno: The New York Times article discussing free speech on television. As I have continuously stated, this has nothing to do with the right to assemble. In no way is this article proving that speech is being upheld over assembly because no one"s right to rally to achieve a common goal is being affected. Source Number Two: While this article has nothing to do with this debate, I at least enjoyed reading it. My opponent says this source explicitly shows how, "Indecent exposure in predatory advertising has even grabbed psychologists' attention as having widespread negative social effects on the preservation of freedom of assembly." When I opened the article I was yet again surprised to find no mention at all of the right to assemble. Again, this article is examining the right of free speech on television. Must I repeat the definition of assemble? The other flaw in my opponent trying to use this source in a debate concerning the right to assemble is the inherent lack of a link between their two arguments. They state that the indecent exposure/language used leads to negative effects on the right to assemble. The article gives no proper link between these two arguments. Sourcer Number Three: Big surprise, this article also does not mention the right to assemble anywhere. This article is discussing how a recent court decision valued the right to free speech over workplace harassment laws. My opponent"s link here was that since workplace harassment laws constitute as stalking, and stalking prohibits a person"s right to assemble, the right of free speech is being upheld over the right to assemble. While I commemorate my opponent"s logical organization, I must point out the link that brings the whole logic path crashing towards the ground. My opponent expresses that stalking prohibits a person"s right to assemble. How does stalking prohibit a person"s right to rally to achieve a common purpose? Again, it doesn"t. While it definitely impedes on other rights, it doesn"t on this one. Source Number Four (and the last one!): I will not be wasting anyone"s time today by typing up another paragraph that would only contain rehash. See my definition of assembly to understand why this also does not fall under the correct definition. Not to mention the article is following the pattern of not mentioning the word assembly whatsoever. From what I understand, the Islamofascism point once again refers to a wrong definition of assemble. My case: The reason I have not, and will not, provide any sources today is because I believe that the dictionary should suffice in bringing down my opponent"s argument. Under my definition of assemble, the right to free speech and the right to assemble share a mutual bond. Free speech leads to assembly and assembly leads to free speech. If one increases, the other increases right along with it. Because of this, they will always remain equal in the United States of America. Please excuse any quotation marks where there should be apostrophes. My computer shows me that it is correct but then reformats my work once I have submitted it. :)