I wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.

▲

charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The 1A does not have an exception for harm.

▲

lokar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not true. Generally the law must be evaluated by the “strict scrutiny“ standard.

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And yet SCOTUS has carved out a number of exceptions where they felt it was clearly necessary. Disorderly conduct and noise ordinances are examples. It's not the end of the world but (very approximately) being woken up by someone shouting in the street at 2 am was deemed a larger problem than restricting your individual right to drunkenly shout at your friend in that scenario.

	▲	Forgeties79 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> being woken up by someone shouting in the street at 2 am was deemed a larger problem than restricting your individual right to drunkenly shout at your friend in that scenario. Because most of the time if you can argue “they won’t do a good job at capitalism [going to work]” then everyone goes “oh no no no we can’t have that.”