Talk:Freedom of association

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capitalism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism articles

Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Undated comments

yeah, i see your point. i think the confusion may have a good deal to do with the Court's muddled jurisprudence in this regard. i adapted the the two "freedoms of association" from roberts v. us jaycees (468 us 609):

"our decisions have referred to constitutionally protected freedom of association in two distinc senses...choices to enter into and maintain human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the state...[and] a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the first amendment..."

After reading the article for the first time i found myself confused with regard to the two cases where the right to Freedom Of Association may be invoked. After further thought, it occurred to me that the source of my confusion was the fact that the two points were not clearly defined and made to appear indistinct. From what i understand, freedom of association covers two issues:

1)Freedom to form intimate relationships with whomever one chooses without intrusion by the state.

2)Freedom to associate for the purpose of protecting civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

Now if you include in point 1: Because the role of these relationships (while not explicit in the Constitution's text, see right to privacy) is central to SAFEGUARDING individual freedoms central to the Constitution, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State.

While point 2 states:

there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of PRESERVING other individual liberties.

From what i understand, in this context safeguarding and preserving are synonymous and the two points would be indistinct making the need for two points redundant.

Freedom: assembly vs. association

I am not a lawyer, and I am suspicious whether Freedom of assembly and Freedom of association are one and the same thing. If they are, then the articles must be merged. If they are not, the distinction must be clarified somewhere for ignoramuses like me. Mikkalai 19:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An informal sense of the difference would be assembly is active organization whereas association involves discontinuing the active participation. I may choose to disassociate with an individual, but it doesn't follow that I want to form some other concern or re-associate with someone else or a group of someone else's. Assembly is a union, Association is just quitting. You could argue though, that assembly is a subset of association. 75.92.15.232 (talk)

US As Special and Important Case

Jagz, please do not destroy the work noting the particular case of the US's civil rights laws as founded upon the insitution of slavery. It is clear that the influential position of the US during the 1960s and beyod had a profound impact on the geopolitics of immigration and integration. Jim Bowery 23:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limitation

"However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]"

I am sorry I might have misread this but is this paragraph saying that discrimination is allowed in marriage, or is saying I can discriminate in my choice of spouse? (Because I totally just shop for spouses like cereal.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverZero (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians

The middle paragraph, the last two sentences are about Right and Left Libertarians, respectively. However, both sentences effectively say the same thing, with different wording. If there's not a difference between the viewpoint of Right and Left Libertarians on this, it would be less confusing if the two sentences were just merged. Pdxleif (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of not associating

The Freedom of association does also include the freedom not to associate with individuals or groups for any reason. It's kind of a freedom of not including or excluding. That should be worked into the article somehow. 41.150.100.20 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of association. 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/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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of association. 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/20130513015149/http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/ to http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs review

Much of this article appears to have been compiled in a slanted way. I removed two assertions in particular that alleged curtailment of this right in the US, when in reality, the examples given conflated freedom of association with the ability to insert a religious test into functions of a public institution, and the ability to discriminate by race or ethnicity. 2601:400:C200:43F1:4DC2:DDC8:2F64:55C7 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]