# data[].attributes.headline
Limitations of Freedom of Assembly in Kazakhstan

# data[].attributes.subject
Limitations of Freedom of Assembly in Kazakhstan

# data[].attributes.body
Kazakhstan already has very strict laws on peaceful gatherings, and new legislation is looking like it will only secure the governments power over these gatherings and although it looks a little less intense, it is still very restrictive. Activists are upset that this legislation is being brought up right now and are criticizing the hasty vote on it arguing that "rushing the bill to a vote while much of the country is under strict lockdown lacked transparency and made it difficult for the public to participate or mobilize."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite repeated promises by Kazakhstan's authorities to reform the country's restrictive protest law, on March 26, parliament rushed through the first vote on a bill that would ultimately maintain the government's tight control over peaceful assembly.

Activists in Kazakhstan have criticized the draft law and questioned the timing and rushed vote. On March 15, in response to the first reported cases of COVID-19 in the country, Kazakhstan implemented a "state of emergency," banning all mass gatherings, including protests. Activists argued rushing the bill to a vote while much of the country is under strict lockdown lacked transparency and made it difficult for the public to participate or mobilize.

On its face, the draft law appears less restrictive than its predecessor, the 1995 law on peaceful assembly. In some cases, it would require organizers to notify authorities of their intent to protest rather than having to obtain a permit, though they would be limited to a state-approved list of locations.

However, the bill still gives the authorities power to approve or reject requests to hold events depending on their form. Government officials can propose alternative locations, times, and dates. If the organizers do not consent to the change, the event will be canceled. None of this complies with international norms for respecting freedom of assembly.

In a positive step, parliamentarians proposed on March 31 to exclude an article of the draft law that would impose worrying new restrictions on journalists covering demonstrations.

Activists say the proposed law would do little to change the authorities' current practices of invoking technical grounds to deny permission to protest and rounding up and detaining any gathering of peaceful protesters. They also expressed concerns that their key recommendations are not reflected in the bill and called for the government to submit the draft to international expert review, to assess whether it adheres to human rights norms.

With the country under lockdown and protest activity limited as a result, there is no clear reason why the government should rush ahead with a vital bill that will undermine citizens' fundamental right to freedom of assembly. Parliament should postpone any further votes until activists' concerns are taken into account and the emergency situation is lifted to enable proper transparency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kazakhstan Draft Law Would Undermine Freedom of Assembly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite repeated promises by Kazakhstan's authorities to reform the country's restrictive protest law, on March 26, parliament rushed through the first vote on a bill that would ultimately maintain the government's tight control over peaceful assembly. Activists in Kazakhstan have criticized the draft law and questioned the timing and rushed vote.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is COVID-19 violating our Freedom of Assembly?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is COVID-19 violating our Freedom of Assembly?

# data[].attributes.body
UN expert says that the Coronavirus crisis should not stop free assembly, although we are being asked to stay home, "the expert said that where new laws or regulations are adopted, any limitations on rights imposed must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. Free-flow of information is crucial in times of crisis and laws criminalising 'false news', including those targeting human rights defenders, must be avoided."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GENEVA (14 April 2020) - A UN expert today called on States not to use state of emergency declarations during the COVID-19 crisis to impose wholesale restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and released detailed Guidelines governments and law enforcement agencies must follow to avoid human rights abuses.

"No country or government can solve this health crisis alone and I am concerned about worrying trends and limitations emerging from civil society reports around the world, including on civil society's ability to support an effective COVID-19 response," said Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

"Civil society organisations are key in helping States to frame inclusive policies, disseminate information, and provide social support to vulnerable communities in need," he said.

In his 10 Guidelines, the expert said that where new laws or regulations are adopted, any limitations on rights imposed must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. Free-flow of information is crucial in times of crisis and laws criminalising 'false news', including those targeting human rights defenders, must be avoided.

"It is inadmissible to declare blanket restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms," Voule said. "Exemptions should be foreseen for civil society actors, particularly those monitoring human rights, trade unions, social services providing humanitarian assistance, and journalists covering the management of the crisis.

"State of emergency does not halt the freedoms of peaceful assembly and of association," the human rights expert said.

Voule said his Guidelines could help States reassess measures already in place to ensure compliance with their human rights obligations and to take citizens' demands fully into account.

ENDS

Mr. Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, from Togo, was appointed as UN Special Rapporteur on the right to peaceful assembly and association in March 2018. He is a lawyer and currently works in Geneva in the field of human rights. He is an associate researcher at the Geneva Academy of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Prior to his appointment, he led the work of the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR). Mr. Voule also worked as Secretary General of the Togolese Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, as campaigning officer for the Coalition for the Togolese International Criminal Court and as Secretary General of the Amnesty International section in Togo. Since 2011, Mr. Voule has been an expert member of the Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human Rights Violations of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
For more information and media requests please contact Bardia Jebeli (+41 22 917 5314 / bjebeli@ohchr.org)
For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact Xabier Celaya (+ 41 22 917 9445 / xcelaya@ohchr.org)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19 restrictions should not stop freedom of assembly and association, says UN expert - World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GENEVA (14 April 2020) - A UN expert today called on States not to use state of emergency declarations during the COVID-19 crisis to impose wholesale restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and released detailed Guidelines governments and law enforcement agencies must follow to avoid human rights abuses.

# data[].attributes.body
In this case the Supreme Court invalidated a law that seemed to hinder freedom of assembly. Coates was charged with "annoying conduct" and the court ruled that ordinance against "annoying conduct" violated the first amendment. "Justice Potter Stewart, who authored the majority opinion, agreed that the law violated due process, noting that “this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and [is] unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct.”" The court ruled in favor of Coates in a 5-4 majority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court ruled that a Cincinnati ordinance that made it a crime for three or more persons to gather on a public street and engage in annoying conduct was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and invalidated it in Coates v. City of Cincinnati. (Photo via Flickr by Paul Sableman of a no loitering sign in St. Louis, CC BY 2.0.)

In Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), the Supreme Court invalidated a city law against loitering that negatively affected freedom of assembly.

Coates charged with gathering and engaging in annoying conduct

Cincinnati officials charged several individuals, including Coates, a college student, with violating an ordinance making it a crime for three or more persons to gather on a public street and engage in annoying conduct.

A state court convicted the individuals, and the state supreme court affirmed, noting that "the word 'annoying' is a widely used and well understood word." Coates contended that the law violated due process and the First Amendment because it was too vague and infringed on the freedoms of assembly and association.

The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance in a 6-3 vote.

Court said ordinance against "annoying conduct" violated First Amendment

Justice Potter Stewart, who authored the majority opinion, agreed that the law violated due process, noting that "this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and [is] unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct."

According to Stewart, "conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others." He also reasoned that the ordinance violated the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and association, warning that city officials could silence First Amendment expressive activities by classifying them as annoying.

Justice Hugo L. Black filed a separate opinion, arguing that the Court should vacate the convictions but send the case back to the state court to supplement the record to establish what type of conduct was allegedly annoying.

Justice Byron R. White dissented, finding that the Court went too far in invalidating the ordinance on its face. "Any man of average comprehension should know that some kinds of conduct, such as assault or blocking passage on the street, will annoy others and are clearly covered by the 'annoying conduct' standard of the ordinance," he wrote.
. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.​
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court ruled that a Cincinnati ordinance that made it a crime for three or more persons to gather on a public street and engage in annoying conduct was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and invalidated it in Coates v. City of Cincinnati. (Photo via Flickr by Paul Sableman of a no loitering sign in St.

# data[].attributes.headline
Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne

# data[].attributes.subject
Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne

# data[].attributes.body
In this 1968 Supreme Court case a white supremacist group held a rally where offensive speeches and such were made. The Commissioners of Princess Anne got a 10 day injunction to stop the supremacist group, which was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision because "The injunction at issue in Princess Anne constituted a form of prior restraint and had been issued without the participation of the National States Rights Party." The justices pointed to previous cases and argued the case was not "moot."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
J.B. Stoner, chairman of the National States Rights Party, sits in his office, Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1977 in Marietta, Ga. In Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne (1968) the Supreme Court struck down an injunction against the party, a white supremacist group, to stop them from rallying in Maryland. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, reprinted with permission from The Associated Press.)

In Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down a 10-day injunction that a Maryland court had issued against rallies by the National States Rights Party, a white supremacist group.

Maryland court tried to prohibit white supremacists from rallying

The organization had earlier rallied near Princess Anne, Maryland, where speakers had delivered speeches with racist content directed toward Jews and African-Americans, some of whom were in the audience.

Local officials then sought an injunction to prohibit the white supremacist group from participating in rallies in Somerset County for a period of 10 days and then later 10 months. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the 10-day injunction but struck down the 10-month injunction.

Court said injunction was incompatible with the First Amendment

Justice Abe Fortas of the Supreme Court observed for the Court that the case was not moot.

He noted that in Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) the Court had upheld the conviction of people who had proceeded to demonstrate after being issued an injunction not to do so. The injunction at issue in Princess Anne constituted a form of prior restraint and had been issued without the participation of the National States Rights Party.

Although Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and other cases had established that the government might limit speech in cases where it was "interlaced with burgeoning violence," prior restraint came to the court with a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.

"The record offered no reason for the petitioners having not been offered the right to attend the hearing; the failure to provide such notice and to hold an adversary hearing was "incompatible with the First Amendment."

to Justice Hugo Black concurred in the opinion. Justice William O. Douglas's concurrence referred to his dissent in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957), in which he opposed the prior restraint of booklets alleged to be obscene, and Freedman v. Maryland (1965), which had opposed prior restraint of movies.
John Vile is professor of political science and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment. This article was originally published in 2009.
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
J.B. Stoner, chairman of the National States Rights Party, sits in his office, Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1977 in Marietta, Ga. In Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne (1968) the Supreme Court struck down an injunction against the party, a white supremacist group, to stop them from rallying in Maryland.

# data[].attributes.body
This case stemmed from the conflict of trying to integrate a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. In this case the Supreme Court ruling "reinforced the principle that freedom of association for the purpose of advocating ideas and airing grievances finds protection within the First Amendment’s free speech and assembly clauses and that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause bars state action that might suppress that principle." The court ruled for Bates with a unanimous decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this photo, Mrs. L.C. "Daisy" Bates, President of the Arkansas state conference of the NAACP, answers questions of reporters during news conference at Finley hall city college of New York on Nov. 1, 1957. Mrs. Bates said she would arrive at her home in Little Rock, Ark., by plane on November 4 despite a city council order calling for the arrest for the arrest of NAACP officers. The arrest order stems from a city council order for the NAACP to turn over its private files to the local government. Mrs. Bates, who arrived in New York City on October 30, said she would go to the police station if she isn't picked up at the airport. The Supreme Court in Bates v. Little Rock (1960) struck down the law, saying it violated the freedom of association found in the First Amendment. (AP Photo/JR, used with permission from the Associated Press)

The finding of the Supreme Court in Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960), reinforced the principle that freedom of association for the purpose of advocating ideas and airing grievances finds protection within the First Amendment's free speech and assembly clauses and that the 14th Amendment's due process clause bars state action that might suppress that principle.

Attempts to integrate Little Rock schools caused violence

The case grew out of the conflict surrounding the 1957 attempt to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The local opposition to integration pushed the danger of violence to such a level that President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to summon U.S. Army troops to keep order. These events leading up to the decision in Bates illustrate the nature of the conflict surrounding the civil rights movement during that period.

Little Rock required NAACP to disclose names of members

In an effort to weaken groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which had supported racial integration of the public schools in Arkansas, the city council of Little Rock passed an amendment to its local tax ordinances that required certain groups, including the local NAACP chapter, to disclose publicly the names of their members and contributors.

Bates refused to disclose names because of the risk to members

But Daisy Bates, president of the Arkansas NAACP and custodian of the relevant records, refused to comply with the public-disclosure requirement. Instead, she gave the city council an affidavit in which she cited the "anti-NAACP climate" in Arkansas and pointed out the risk that such a disclosure might cause "harassment, economic reprisals, and even bodily harm" of NAACP members.

Bates was then arrested, tried, convicted, and fined $100 for violating the ordinance. Arkansas state courts upheld the conviction and fine, and Bates sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Court said the ordinance was invalid

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Potter Stewart pointed to evidence presented at the trial demonstrating that many members of the Little Rock NAACP chapter had declined to renew their memberships in the organization because of the public-disclosure requirement. Moreover, fear of community hostility and economic reprisals had discouraged new members from joining and had induced some of the present members to withdraw.

Stewart rejected the argument that these repressive effects were the result of the private attitudes of persons in the community rather than of the city council by asserting that these effects were "brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental power had threatened to force disclosure of the members' names."

Stewart paid due regard to the fundamental power of the community to enact tax ordinances such as the one at issue in this case. However, he countered that when state action impinges on constitutionally protected freedom, that action "must bear a reasonable relationship to the governmental purpose asserted in its justification." Finding that the disclosure of the names of members bore no such relationship to the legitimate purposes of the ordinance, Stewart held the ordinance invalid.

Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas joined in a brief concurring opinion in which they asserted that "First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment either by legislation that directly restrains their exercise or by suppression or impairment through harassment, humiliation, or exposure by government."

Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this photo, Mrs. L.C. "Daisy" Bates, President of the Arkansas state conference of the NAACP, answers questions of reporters during news conference at Finley hall city college of New York on Nov. 1, 1957. Mrs.

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment protects an American's right to freely and fully practice religion. To do this, the First Amendment had to be clear and entail several things, one of which is the Freedom of Assembly. It would be practically impossible to successfully practice religion if people did not have the right to congregate. Religious people find major solace in these assemblies, like church. It entails many of their holy congregations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution including freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government, and fun facts.

# data[].attributes.body
It is "the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas."

# data[].attributes.body
"The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' in the First Amendment."