Talk:Freedom of assembly

message: 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)
thread_title: Tiered rights

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Groups of a State, Country, or Nation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right of Assembly no longer applies?  Really??! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should an Occupy poster be a main illustration? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524221035/http://www.pmo.gov.bd/pmolib/constitution/part3.htm to http://www.pmo.gov.bd/pmolib/constitution/part3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152449/http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf to http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified