I. The City of Aston’s Panhandling Ordinance Is A Valid, Content-neutral Regulation Of Speech Under The First Amendment And Therefore, Does Not Violate Mr. Hou’s Right To Freedom Of Speech. (Jerica B. Johnson)
The District Court did not err in its denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss the panhandling charge, holding that the City of Aston’s panhandling ordinance is content-neutral and a constitutionally-valid time, place, and manner restriction of speech.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” However, First Amendment protection is not absolute in every respect, as it does not extend to all forms of speech, and not all places are protected …show more content…
The panhandling ordinance is much broader than Petitioners contention that it only affects the homeless population, as the ordinance applies evenhandedly to any and every induvial who wishes to verbally solicit money or things of value within the Square, including Petitioner and others similarly situated. Second, the ordinance was enacted to serve the significant government interest of protecting the City of Aston’s citizens and visitors to the Square from the threatening and coercive nature of verbal solicitations that frequently lead to the fear, intimidation, and the reluctance to visit the Square that many residents experience, which further affects the city’s economy. Finally, the panhandling ordinance leaves open ample opportunities for alternative channels of communication because the ban does not apply to areas outside of the Square, and the ordinance still permits all non-verbal requests for contributions within the Square, during the daytime and nighttime. Furthermore, any solicitor who travels outside of the Square may make any solicitations they desire, irrespective of the manner in which they choose to do
The District Court did not err in its denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss the panhandling charge, holding that the City of Aston’s panhandling ordinance is content-neutral and a constitutionally-valid time, place, and manner restriction of speech.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” However, First Amendment protection is not absolute in every respect, as it does not extend to all forms of speech, and not all places are protected …show more content…
The panhandling ordinance is much broader than Petitioners contention that it only affects the homeless population, as the ordinance applies evenhandedly to any and every induvial who wishes to verbally solicit money or things of value within the Square, including Petitioner and others similarly situated. Second, the ordinance was enacted to serve the significant government interest of protecting the City of Aston’s citizens and visitors to the Square from the threatening and coercive nature of verbal solicitations that frequently lead to the fear, intimidation, and the reluctance to visit the Square that many residents experience, which further affects the city’s economy. Finally, the panhandling ordinance leaves open ample opportunities for alternative channels of communication because the ban does not apply to areas outside of the Square, and the ordinance still permits all non-verbal requests for contributions within the Square, during the daytime and nighttime. Furthermore, any solicitor who travels outside of the Square may make any solicitations they desire, irrespective of the manner in which they choose to do