# data[].attributes.body
French citizens are currently putting on demonstrations and marching against the French president. This is an international example of people exercising the right to assemble

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Witness the Women's March in Washington | The Daily 360 | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/299us353
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/312us569
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/86
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/trump-administration-seeks-stifle-protests-near-white-house-and
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992
https://godandgoodlife.nd.edu/digital-essays/letter-from-a-birmingham-jail/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/helen-pankhurst-join-remembering-suffragettes-sacrifice-today/
http://nonviolent.weebly.com/protests-on-the-war-in-vietnam.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190407/thousands-of-yellow-vests-march-ahead-of-frances-great-debate-resultss
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190329/what-to-expect-this-weekend-for-the-yellow-vest-protests

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Administration Trying to Limit Protests on White House Sidewalk 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Administration Trying to Limit Protests on White House Sidewalk 

# data[].attributes.body
In October 2018, the Trump administration wanted to cut of 80% of the White House sidewalk from protesters and charge high fees. This is important because it is a recurring theme for protesters, their rights being challenged simply because someone does not agree with their message. This happens to everyone, across party lines and especially to extremists. It is important to remember that though we may disagree with what someone is protesting, if we limit them we limit ourselves in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
This right was declared in the constitution in response to the british government often restricting the right to assembly out of fear that these assemblies might overthrow the government.

# data[].attributes.body
New Hampshire made a statute that prohibited parades, protests and marches that did apply for a permit to do so. Cox put on an information parade without applying for a permit and was fined. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision sided with New Hampshire stating that their statute did not limit any constitutional rights as it was simply ensuring that there would be no danger and that the events would not infringe on anyone's daily lives.

# data[].attributes.body
A group of students assembled outside a government building in a peaceful protest. They were arrested after refusing to diverse. The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court and in an 8-1 decision the court sided with Edwards stating that his right to assemble had been violated.

# data[].attributes.body
In this case, and individual argued that an Oregon law restricting criminal syndicalism was unconstitutional. The supreme court unanimously agreed that this law indeed violates the 1st amendment.
This decision decided that the freedom of assembly applies at the state level, incorporating this right.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of; or abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of; or abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble

# data[].attributes.body
This means that Congress cannot limit the extent to which people are able to "peaceably" assemble. The key word is "peaceably", it is fully within Congress's right to make laws that prevent violence and chaos