On May 9, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Michael Atherton wrote:
Michael Jensvold wrote:
The attempt to regulate panhandlers is a clear violation of free speech. What's the difference between a passive panhandler and the "Would you like to help defeat George Bush" folks last political season? If they can regulate the former the latter is in danger too.
I'd tend to agree that regulating panhandlers might be a violation of free speech, but the interesting question is whether panhandling is a commercial activity. What do you think?
This seems to be the view in Dayton, Ohio and the other cities that have issued licenses. So far, the courts have agreed.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that commercial speech has less protection than political speech. (This is why, even before the late-'90s smoking settlement, you didn't see a cigarette ad on TV.) It's a paradigm that's been criticized, but the court's been consistent.
Whether there are political aspects to hitting someone up for money is an interesting question, one I'll let others opine about.
David Brauer Kingfield
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
