One of the freedoms many people take for granted is the freedom of association - the right to spend time with any person or group they wish to. Our government isn't supposed to tell us to refrain from joining certain groups or spending time with certain types of people - but that hasn't stopped them from trying. In Illinois, a judge has forbidden members of a suburban gang from hanging out with each other.

The Chicago Sun-Times explains:

"It's a significant tool against gangs,'' [DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph] Birkett said, adding the decision clears the way for police and prosecutors to file similar civil suits against other gangs. "The bottom line is the judge gave us what we were after,'' Birkett said, vowing that such suits "will be used again -- no question.''

Court-appointed defense attorney Dan Brown argued that banning the gang members from simply hanging out together publicly was too broad a step to take. "The right to associate took a hit today,'' Brown said. His client, Arthur Guillen Jr., is now prohibited from associating publicly with a relative, Thomas Guillen, who also was named in the suit. "What if they just meet in a store? They can't even say hello,'' Brown said.

It's almost certain that people are better off if the gang members stay away from each other - although the chances of that happening anyway is small since so few remain in the area (most have moved or are in prison). The reasoning for this, however, is rather weak. According to Birkett, banning a person from exercising a constitutionally protected right is justified if the use of that right has led in the past to illegal activity.

That's a rather broad principle which, if actually implemented, would effectively eviscerate the Constitution. People have used privacy in order to conspire to commit crimes - so if they are convicted and pay their debt, does that mean that they can be barred from having any privacy again? Perhaps the government can ignore the Fourth Amendment, doing searches and seizures on such people at any time they feel like it? If a person's statements lead to violence and they are convicted on, say, inciting a riot, can they be barred from exercising free speech ever again?

I would hope that our government never goes down that road - but that seems to be just the course that Birkett and this decision would map out for us. It's a very disturbing vision where constitutional rights are abrogated too easily.

Read More:

• Recent Books on Free Speech
• Court Decisions on Free Speech and Censorship