-Caveat Lector-
"``The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's
views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.' "
Court Backs Fla. Panhandling Law
By LAURIE ASSEO
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeless people who say they have a free-speech right to
beg for handouts at the city beach in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., lost a Supreme
Court appeal today.
The court, without comment, turned away arguments that the city's panhandling
ban is too broad.
A 1993 regulation prohibits ``soliciting, begging or panhandling'' on a
five-mile strip of Fort Lauderdale's city beach and the sidewalks on each
side of an adjacent street.
The regulation states that it is intended to ``eliminate nuisance activity on
the beach and provide patrons with a pleasant environment.''
A group of homeless people challenged the regulation in a federal
class-action lawsuit, saying it violated the Constitution's First Amendment
guarantee of free speech.
The city could have imposed a narrower rule that barred only hostile or
aggressive panhandling, or restricted begging to specific areas of the beach,
the lawsuit contended.
A federal judge and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
regulation. Governments can restrict expression in public areas to serve a
legitimate interest as long as they leave open other avenues of expression,
the appeals court ruled, noting that panhandling still is allowed in other
parts of Fort Lauderdale.
In the appeal acted on today, the homeless people's lawyers said there was no
evidence of complaints from tourists or business owners that begging had
created a nuisance at the beach.
``This court has never upheld a law completely precluding speech in a public
forum based upon the bare assertion that the speech is a nuisance and that
the environment would be more pleasant if the speech were banned,'' the
appeal said.
The city's lawyers urged the justices to reject the appeal. ``The First
Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all
times and places or in any manner that may be desired,'' they said.
The case is Smith vs. Fort Lauderdale, 99-377.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
