I must disagree with you Flare, especially on this point:
A right to assembly doesn't mean that it's permissible to get together organize and plot activities that harm individuals.
In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.
That is very strange to me, moreover counter intuitive too. I think we should look into what you refer to as planning. The main thing here is the intent that is the key in which people are charged when plotting murder. For example, if you were an under cover police officer disguised as a hitman attending a meeting where a bunch of people are looking to pay professional assassins to knock off people they don't politically agree with, I'm fairly certain that they would be charged with attempted murder. Likewise, if a group of people are planning to plant a bomb in the middle of downtown, I don't think it's all that difficult to say that when the police have evidence of their intent, and they have evidence of their organizing to accomplish this goal there's very little reason to hold that they should be arrested only after the bomb goes off and kills lots of people.
I think what you're concerned with is the severity of the planning. A person shouldn't be charged if there's a lack of evidence to their intent and their steps in bringing about such an action. When a group of people do do it. It is abusing their rights to cause harm to other people, the right of assembly included.
As for "using rights responsibly", there's some syntax weirdness with rights so I'll post this before I go any further:
Yeah, the way people talk about "rights" is actually syntactically very weird.
Imagine you're alone on a desert island with no human contact. If I say that you have a right to a phone call, what does that mean? How is it any different from a case where you don't have a right to a phone call?
A "right" that you have is actually a restriction on how other people are allowed to act with respect to you. If you are arrested by the police and you have a right to a phone call, that means that the police are obligated to provide you with a phone and allow you to make a call on it. It doesn't actually say anything at all about you, even though you are the one who supposedly "has" this right.
So while a right that you have is never something that you are compelled to do or not do, it is always something that someone else is compelled to do or not do. Each of your rights is actually someone else's responsibility.
I don't understand the point you're bringing up. I'm fairly sure that when I say that all rights have some sort of responsibility imposed onto the person endowed with it that by necessity there are other people in this picture.
In any case, when I use the word rights in a sentence, I mean it in the legal sense as that is more or less the only relevant thing here. It is my view that rights exist solely on the fact that it is recognized when a sovereign entity does it (or at least most of them anyway).
If you have a "right" I believe you have a right to enforce it no matter what you plan to do. Using your analogies, you actually don't have the right to drive a car wherever you want. You have a right to drive it on the road and not into other people.
It is not up to me to enforce it, it is up to the sovereign entity to enforce it. To clarify in any case with your car analogy, I would say that people will always have a right to drive it, yet will not always be able to drive the car responsibly and therefore even when they do have the right they can't exercise their right to drive their car without breaking the law. The issue is two fold here: Rights, and the responsibilities they entail. You will always have the right (or at least ignoring extraneous circumstances), but you will never always be able to do so responsibly.
When two rights seem to conflict, the repressing one wins out. For example: I have the right to protest. Another person has the right to property. Therefore, I do not have the right to burn down their house as a form of protest.
I do believe you're not using the correct definition of protest here. No where does the right to protest, or the definition of protest for that matter, state that you have to burn or destroy anything while protesting even though it may be associated with it.
There is no "responsible" use of rights since if you're actually within your rights, you literally can do no wrong. Any debate should be where the line is drawn on what is and isn't a right you have.
I don't think you're making the connection here. The exercising of these rights within the context of the rights of the people around you
is to exercise your right responsibly.