Except the US views it as its right to assemble who it wants to allow in. Same right, different perspective.

This is not remotely true. Of course it is denied if you can classify it as violent.

How so?

It doesnt even seem remotely the same.

That would be the right to prevent assembly.

A team assembling on the playground that doesn’t pick all the friends who want to play together has prevented the friends from assembling.

Assembly amongst all groups simultaneously isn’t possible with humans who are not bifurcating bosons.

That doesn't make sense.

Just because you used a word in a sentence doesn't make it so.

> A team assembling on the playground that doesn’t pick all the friends who want to play together has prevented the friends from assembling.

They haven't prevented anything. Just because a team assembled, does not exclude others from being there.

They can exclude, of course, but that has nothing to do with the assembly.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/assembl...

> uncountable noun

> When you refer to rights of assembly or restrictions on assembly, you are referring to the legal right that people have to gather together

It's the gathering thats the assembly, not the exclusion. You just made that up.

No, "the US" does not. Maybe the fascists currently in power are twisting words like that though, just as they twist every other lofty ideal into a rationalization for hurting people.

> a universal human right

This concept has been dead outside Europe since at least the 1990s. (It never found purchase in Russia, China or India.)

... That's not remotely true. Hypocrisy on the issue of human rights doesn't negate their existence in frameworks or as ideals that have motivated real progress. And, ignorance of human rights work outside of Europe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Finally, Europe doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to human rights hypocrisy either, even if they're some of the best of a bad lot.