I have mixed feelings about the new street corner anti-begging ordinance passed by the ABQ City Council. I think from a safety standpoint it is probably necessary and it puts the onus on drivers who pull out a couple of bucks to give to the homeless to cease their charity.
I have always chosen not to hand money out the car window because I give my donations to NGOs who do good work. But I have always admired those street corner alms seekers because they prove the point that hard work isn't difficult for them. If you disagree then try standing out in the summer sun and winter wind for 10 hours a day trying to get enough money for your next meal and narcotic fix.
No, most of these beggars are there out of necessity thanks to Ronald Reagan and the ACLU deciding that these often mentally disturbed people don't belong in institutions where they at least had food and shelter. It is one big black mark against the ACLU in my opinion. Although I still send them money.
I also think for many supporters of this ordinance that they just don't want to see these people. It is hard to watch this suffering really, so let's make them invisible.
I have always chosen not to hand money out the car window because I give my donations to NGOs who do good work. But I have always admired those street corner alms seekers because they prove the point that hard work isn't difficult for them. If you disagree then try standing out in the summer sun and winter wind for 10 hours a day trying to get enough money for your next meal and narcotic fix.No, most of these beggars are there out of necessity thanks to Ronald Reagan and the ACLU deciding that these often mentally disturbed people don't belong in institutions where they at least had food and shelter. It is one big black mark against the ACLU in my opinion. Although I still send them money.
I also think for many supporters of this ordinance that they just don't want to see these people. It is hard to watch this suffering really, so let's make them invisible.
2 comments:
The Journal article notes that a similar law was struck down for infringing on free speech rights, and quotes the sponsor of the ordinance, Trudy Jones, as saying:
Jones said she is expecting to be sued over the ordinance but argued that it isn’t infringing on anyone’s free speech rights. “They have as much free speech as they want,” she said. “They just have to put it someplace different. We’re not trying to limit their speech; we’re just trying to say it needs to be in a safe place."
Her flippancy about intentionally wasting taxpayer money aside, what she says about free speech is either an outright misrepresentation or shows a complete ignorance of the First Amendment to the constitution. Of course Jones is limiting their speech. The courts have held that free speech means "no prior restraint." No limits. Everyone is free to say what they want when they want and where they want.
If, afterward, someone claims the speech caused harm, then is the time to take remedial action. Not before, simply because no one can be trusted to be the gatekeeper of speech. Imagine if the government decided on matters of free speech. With Republicans in power only Republicans can speak. Then only Democrats can speak. Free speech is necessary to allow all ideas to be aired, the founders decided, enough of them did. It's too bad the council went along with this.
For some years now both political parties in conjunction with law enforcement have been herding protestors at their conventions into pens some distance from the arena and calling the pens "free speech zones."
It's a macabre and nauseating affront to the constitution to twist the meaning of free speech that way and so is it when Jones says people can have all the free speech they want if they go out in the middle of the desert.
So it's natural that people in positions of power, seeing how it would benefit themselves, would soon figure out how to take any limits people have managed to put on speech even further. Trump threatens to pull the broadcasting licenses of media he doesn't like and in Albuquerque Jones and the city council want to throw people in jail for demonstrating their generosity. All limits on speech erode democracy a little bit more and make authoritarianism more possible.
and if there are
So does this law apply to the sign spinners and dancers for various companies that are at intersections as well?
Post a Comment