I think that's clear. He's spreading and inciting panic with words. This is a more apt metaphor (as you unnecessary pointed out below) than a limitation on the peaceably assemble.


Yes. There are limits to constitutional rights. Limiting the right of the people to assemble in groups of fewer than 1000 or 250 is not tested however. What's really, or should really be tested here, is the limitations of the governor's ability to make such decisions and of course the enforcement part as well. They use "force" to break up an assembly.... will charges be filed? Which charges?

Yes thank you for assuming I'm illiterate. I'm telling you these are not similar things.

Curfews are tested. Maybe you could take the case to the Supreme Court though. I would guess it is found to be acceptable.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

(20 ILCS 3305/7) (from Ch. 127, par. 1057)
Sec. 7. Emergency Powers of the Governor. In the event of a disaster, as defined in Section 4, the Governor may, by proclamation declare that a disaster exists. Upon such proclamation, the Governor shall have and may exercise for a period not to exceed 30 days the following emergency powers; provided, however, that the lapse of the emergency powers shall not, as regards any act or acts occurring or committed within the 30-day period, deprive any person, firm, corporation, political subdivision, or body politic of any right or rights to compensation or reimbursement which he, she, it, or they may have under the provisions of this Act:

...[I encourage you to read these parts I'm skipping over, because holy crap]...

(6) To recommend the evacuation of all or part of thepopulation from any stricken or threatened area within the State if the Governor deems this action necessary.
(7) To prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with evacuation.
(8) To control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein.

I imagine it would have to be tested in several levels of courts before it got near the SCOTUS.

Here's a theoretical question though... could the government, or should the government, suppress the spread of false information, or what it perceives to be false information, regarding the spread and nature of coronavirus, in an effort to suppress panic and hoarding or looting? I feel that would be a more apt metaphor to helling fire than limitations of assembly.

Schools at least for now are staying open because schools are more important than an NBA game.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Can Pritzker control movement of citizens to some degree after declaring an emergency? Yes. To what degree? That depends.



I think sub-section 8 is what Pritzker is utilizing here to quash gatherings above whatever figure he sets. And to be fair, for as constitutionally regressive as the power seems, giving government's chief executive the authority control the immediate area of a disaster is certainly reasonable.

I think, though, that any challenge to this action (real or hypothetical) would come in the form of attacking Pritzker's inclusion of the entire state in his definition of "disaster area". It defies all reason that the citizens of Jasper County, Illinois are having their civil liberties abridged because 11 cases of a not-all-that-lethal virus appeared in a handful of counties 200+ miles way from them.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Schools are important so go ahead and gather there. Trust us we are taking this disease really seriously.

This is precisely the kind of response I was looking for with my original question.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I thought it was interesting that Fred Hoiberg looked like he was dying on the bench the other day and there was relief that it was not the Wuhan virus. I'm sure that's comforting to anyone who catches what he actually has. Looked like fun.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Not an answer here.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I thought it was interesting that Fred Hoiberg looked like he was dying on the bench the other day and there was relief that it was not the Wuhan virus. I'm sure that's comforting to anyone who catches what he actually has. Looked like fun.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Wasn't a question asked either. You just unilaterally decided what is and is not important. If you are a child, have a child school, or work at the school it's "important", but there are options to learn from home.

If you work in the NBA, work at an arena, work in restaurants, bars, merchandising etc. NBA games are also important. If you decide that gatherings of 1,000 people are not acceptable or the police will come to stop it, why keep the schools open? There are thousands of kids in schools gathering together in a confined space, and they are probably statistically less likely to follow cleanliness and disease control guidelines than adults.

I didn't unilaterally decide anything. It is my opinion that a vast majority of people would agree that schools being open are more important than NBA games being open. Now, maybe you disagree though I don't really see an argument being made outside of "people make money off the NBA" which is also true for schools so it really doesn't matter. If you were given a choice, which was to close every school in the state, or every pro sports venue in the state, would you choose the pro sports venues?

You do it because schools are more important than NBA games in terms of taking care of kids, providing meals to kids, and the well being of our country.

all schools will be closed in short order so you guys might as well hold off on the arguing about it.

So it’s a more acceptable risk to keep them open ? Despite adults being told its dangerous to gather in groups of plus 999 ?

It's a tough situation all around. The NBA being cancelled has very little downside. No one is going to go hungry or have no one able to watch them during the day because the Bulls aren't playing.

However, it does seem like schools are going to get the same treatment in terms of being cancelled. It's a harder call though than losing out on the second most interesting basketball games in the world.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

No one? I dunno man, theres a lot of workers and businesses in the area that depend on the stadium and crowds for their livings.

Is your suggestion here that nothing should be done to try and stop the spread of the virus?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

It is my suggestion that your blanket statement that no one will go hungry and that there is little downside might not have been thought through fully. I have no idea where you got whatever idea you're trying to plant in your post.

Potential layoffs are a completely separate issue that is far more varied in terms of potential causes.

Many children rely on schools to provide a safe place during the day and one or two good meals a day. This is not true of pro sports stadiums.

Potential layoffs are a completely separate issue that is far more varied in terms of potential causes.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Who are you arguing with? I'm not talking about schools. I'm telling you that cancelling sporting events does not have "very little downside" and claiming "no one will go hungry" is false.

I'm talking about schools. You jumped in on the discussion.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

And I didn't jump into anything. I started this thread. Its entire direction and the question posed originally has been completely hijacked a couple times.