Heffron is similar to our case, because both the regulation in Heffron and our ordinance place restrictions on where individuals are permitted to engage in solicitation. In determining the content neutrality of the regulation in Heffron, the court held that the restriction was content-neutral because it was not intended to silence one particular message and was not an attempt to regulate ideas because the regulation applied evenhandedly to all who wished to engage in solicitation, regardless of whether the person or organization’s purpose was private, commercial or charitable. This is wholly similar to our case because the Aston panhandling ordinance states that no immediate donations of money or other things of value are permitted “regardless
…show more content…
Lee, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, adopted a regulation forbidding the repetitive solicitation of money within airport terminals. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 674 (1992). However, solicitation was permitted on the sidewalks outside of the terminal buildings. Id. A religious corporation, whose members solicit funds in public places to support their movement, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the regulation deprived its members of their First Amendment rights. Id. at 676. The district court granted summary judgment for the corporation, concluding that the terminals were public fora, and that the regulation banning solicitation within the terminals failed because it was not narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest. Id. at 677. The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. Id. On grant of certiorari, the Court affirmed, holding that airports were not traditional public forums because their traditional purpose was not to promote the free exchange of ideas but to facilitate air travel. Id. at 683. Therefore, the regulation needed only to serve a reasonable government interest. Id. The Court held that the ban on solicitation did serve a reasonable government interest, and thus did not violate the free speech guarantee, given that (1) such solicitation may have a disruptive effect on business by …show more content…
City of Fort Lauderdale, as part of their rules and regulations to eliminate nuisance activity on parks and beaches, the defendant city enacted a regulation, which prohibited soliciting, begging and panhandling on the city’s beach and an adjacent sidewalk. Chad v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1243-44 (S.D. Fla. 1998). The purpose of such regulation was "to provide citizens with a safe environment in which recreational opportunity can be maximized." Id. at 1243. The city also alleged that such rules were designed to expand the community's economic base, and to help protect the City's lucrative and important tourist industry. Id. at 1244. Plaintiff, a homeless man, filed a class action challenging the speech regulation as an unconstitutional limitation on speech under the First Amendment. Id. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and the court granted summary judgment for the city. Id. at 1247. The court held that the regulation was narrowly tailored and reasonable in light of the purpose of improving the safety, economic viability derived from tourism, and aesthetics of the city’s beach. Id. at 1244. In granting summary judgment for the city, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the regulation was not narrowly tailored because it covered all begging, panhandling, and solicitation, and not just aggressive types, noting that “any affirmative encounter that would qualify as begging or solicitation” was “inherently disruptive to one's
Lee, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, adopted a regulation forbidding the repetitive solicitation of money within airport terminals. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 674 (1992). However, solicitation was permitted on the sidewalks outside of the terminal buildings. Id. A religious corporation, whose members solicit funds in public places to support their movement, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the regulation deprived its members of their First Amendment rights. Id. at 676. The district court granted summary judgment for the corporation, concluding that the terminals were public fora, and that the regulation banning solicitation within the terminals failed because it was not narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest. Id. at 677. The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. Id. On grant of certiorari, the Court affirmed, holding that airports were not traditional public forums because their traditional purpose was not to promote the free exchange of ideas but to facilitate air travel. Id. at 683. Therefore, the regulation needed only to serve a reasonable government interest. Id. The Court held that the ban on solicitation did serve a reasonable government interest, and thus did not violate the free speech guarantee, given that (1) such solicitation may have a disruptive effect on business by …show more content…
City of Fort Lauderdale, as part of their rules and regulations to eliminate nuisance activity on parks and beaches, the defendant city enacted a regulation, which prohibited soliciting, begging and panhandling on the city’s beach and an adjacent sidewalk. Chad v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1243-44 (S.D. Fla. 1998). The purpose of such regulation was "to provide citizens with a safe environment in which recreational opportunity can be maximized." Id. at 1243. The city also alleged that such rules were designed to expand the community's economic base, and to help protect the City's lucrative and important tourist industry. Id. at 1244. Plaintiff, a homeless man, filed a class action challenging the speech regulation as an unconstitutional limitation on speech under the First Amendment. Id. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and the court granted summary judgment for the city. Id. at 1247. The court held that the regulation was narrowly tailored and reasonable in light of the purpose of improving the safety, economic viability derived from tourism, and aesthetics of the city’s beach. Id. at 1244. In granting summary judgment for the city, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the regulation was not narrowly tailored because it covered all begging, panhandling, and solicitation, and not just aggressive types, noting that “any affirmative encounter that would qualify as begging or solicitation” was “inherently disruptive to one's