[yuchunsa]

okay so this one question for government is really confusing so i was wondering if anybody could help clarify what this question is saying and what da answer choices mean
sorry in advance if this post is in da wrong section or if it is inappropriate - then remove please!

so here goes da question:

A Civil Rights group has decided to hold a public meeting to discuss recent prejudicial acts. Some members of the group are concerned that they will be arrested for participating in the meeting, especially if the meeting becomes heated. They know that previous meetings on this issue have ended in arguments, and occasionally violence. Which of the following best describes the Supreme Court’s history in this area?

a. It has weighed even more heavily in favor of individual rights in freedom of assembly cases than it has on speech cases.
b. It has not given as much weight to individual rights in freedom of assembly cases as it has in other First Amendment cases.

thanks

[joogrlpekaun]

I think the answer is B. I think there are more cases where a claim to freedom of assembly by an individual or group was rejected than cases where an individual's claim to freedom of speech was. For example, groups can sometimes exclude individuals from their meetings, and most of the time the right of assembly is not fully extended to private property. Yeah, so the scenario is probably not on private property without permission, and the first exception I mentioned doesn't really apply, either, but the wording of the Constitution says specifically that people have the right to assemble "peaceably," too. Freedom of assembly doesn't necessarily protect individuals if the meeting becomes violent, though just verbally arguing shouldn't be enough. Rowdy groups like hardcore anti-abortion protesters have also been restricted somewhat.

Ugh, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining my thinking at all! Anyway, I think individual rights in freedom of assembly cases haven't been given as much weight as, say, freedom of religion, press, or speech. Freedom of the press has been pretty well protected, which includes the rights of an individual writer. Individuals' free speech is usually weighted pretty heavily. Freedom of religion has only been restricted in pretty drastic cases or where it violated that freedom for others, if I remember correctly.

Watch me be wrong.

EDIT

Ohhh wait, you just wanted an explanation of the question. My bad. Anyway, the answer choices are straightforward:

Either you choose A, which says that the Supreme Court has protected the rights of individuals to assemble more than it has defended individuals' right of free speech. This choice implies that the people at the meeting are very strongly protected under the First Amendment when they meet and are not as likely to get in trouble.
OR
B, which says that not only is an individual's right of assembly less often protected by the Supreme Court than free speech is, but also less than all the other First Amendment rights. This answer implies that the right of those people to hold the meeting isn't as immune to challenge as in choice A if, for example, the meeting goes awry.