In Young v. New York City Transit Authority, the courts used different tests and relevant precedents to determine if begging and panhandling should be protected under the freedom of speech doctrine. The two-prong test was developed by the Supreme Court in Spence v. Washington to determine if expressive conduct was protected as a form of speech under the First Amendment. “The first prong of the test requires a court to determine whether there exists an intent to convey a “particularized message.” The second prong requires a determination as to whether the likelihood is great that the message being conveyed will be understood by those who are exposed to it” (Zur, 1992). This is important to because both prongs need to be satisfied in order for
…show more content…
Content-Base Restrictions attempt to regulate the ideas or information contained in the speech or its general subject matter. On the other hand, Content-Neutral Restrictions do not attempt to regulate the content of speech. When applying the strict scrutiny test to a content-based restriction, Section 1050.6 is proposed to serve the public safety and subway efficiency. There are three main reasons why a complete ban on panhandling in the subway system is not a narrowly tailored method of achieving that interest. First, the connection between banning panhandling in the subway system and public safety is questionable. Second, even if public safety was a governmental interest, a complete ban on panhandling is not going to solve the problem completely. Lastly, it was mentioned that panhandling disrupted passengers and the effectiveness of the fast-moving pace in a crowded subway, which may lead to an accidents and other law suits. In terms of subway efficiency, a concern is that if the Transit Authority allowed panhandling, it would disrupt the flow of pedestrian traffic making the subway inefficient. In Young v. the New York City Transit Authority, the Second Circuit’s First Amendment analysis in determined that Section 1050.6 constituted a content-neutral
Content-Base Restrictions attempt to regulate the ideas or information contained in the speech or its general subject matter. On the other hand, Content-Neutral Restrictions do not attempt to regulate the content of speech. When applying the strict scrutiny test to a content-based restriction, Section 1050.6 is proposed to serve the public safety and subway efficiency. There are three main reasons why a complete ban on panhandling in the subway system is not a narrowly tailored method of achieving that interest. First, the connection between banning panhandling in the subway system and public safety is questionable. Second, even if public safety was a governmental interest, a complete ban on panhandling is not going to solve the problem completely. Lastly, it was mentioned that panhandling disrupted passengers and the effectiveness of the fast-moving pace in a crowded subway, which may lead to an accidents and other law suits. In terms of subway efficiency, a concern is that if the Transit Authority allowed panhandling, it would disrupt the flow of pedestrian traffic making the subway inefficient. In Young v. the New York City Transit Authority, the Second Circuit’s First Amendment analysis in determined that Section 1050.6 constituted a content-neutral