Are Panhandlers' Rights to Freedom of Speech Being Violated?

A homeless man from New Rochelle City, Eric Hoffstead, had his day in court and won. Arrested after asking a policeman for a dollar Mr. Hoffstead argued that begging is a form of free speech and his right to it was violated. Citing a federal court decision stating that New York's
 loitering law violated First Amendment protections, Hoffstead asked his lawyer to refer to it in his court hearing. The judge dismissed the case along with an additional misdemeanor charge for possession of a crack pipe when he was arrested. Other panhandlers have fought the law on grounds that laws banning or restricting panhandling violates the 1st Amendment right to Free Speech.

A class-action lawsuit filed by attorney Mark Weinberg in 2001 was settled in favor of panhandlers against the city of Chicago, Illinois. The tentative settlement awarded $500,000. to panhandlers who were arrested of ticketed for panhandling, with $375,000 of that amount going to the attorneys who handled the lawsuit. The lawsuit came about due to the city's panhandling ordinance enacted in 1991. The ordinance was repealed in 2002. Attorneys acting on behalf of panhandlers claimed the ordinance violated their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.

An ordinance making it illegal to ask strangers for food or money near downtown Atlanta, Georgia museums was approved in August 2005. The Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site was added after people pointed out that the ban protecting tourists from panhandlers did not include this popular Atlanta attraction. One council member who approved the new law admitted she did not know if it was constitutional. Protestors to the ban's passage felt asking for alms is a God given right.

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 22 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Great article! Wonderful insight into the many problems that people face

Posted on 09/04/2007 at 8:09:00 PM

Five stars!

Posted on 07/14/2007 at 8:07:00 PM

Chaotic Ramblings: I could not say that the Day Laborers picked up at Home Depot are illegal immigrants, but those that appear to be Mexican have been picked up in favor over English speaking born in the USA "persons of color who tried to get such a job while homeless.

Posted on 07/09/2007 at 12:07:00 PM

interesting read

Posted on 07/08/2007 at 4:07:00 AM

Great article. Welfare, food stamps, and medicare are not that easy to get these days, at least not in California. I have met people who are working and are homeless. Lots of people are on the streets because some are mentally ill and have no one to turn to, some have jobs, but, the cost of living is so high, they can't hold on to an apartment. We have veterans living on the streets because some can't find a decent job. Some people have no job. There are lots of reasons why people are living on the streets. We even have senior citizens living on the streets.

Posted on 06/20/2007 at 11:06:00 PM

Hmm.. and we think illegal aliens aren't hurting America? Wouldn't it be nice if these panhandlers could be hired as dayworkers instead of the illegals? Just a thought. Great article.

Posted on 06/19/2007 at 2:06:00 PM

Whether there is good reason for people to be on the streets is debatable but having worked in the public assistance field representing people, I know that often shelters get full or kick people out and then they are on the street. They may or may not be able to get to a free food place. I remember being in Czechosolvakia where panhandling was illegal and it sent a chill up my spine. So I don't have a problem with panhandling per se; no one wants to believe it could be him or herself out there, but if you took time to talk to these PEOPLE, you would find that they all have stories and many once had lives not so different than your own. Aggressive panhandling however does need to be prohibited. And the panhandling in traffic.

Posted on 06/17/2007 at 10:06:00 AM

State assistance, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid all take a very long time to get to and a person must go through a series of paperwork and verification forms to prove they need it. Without some form of address or something of that nature, the state will turn a person away. I have a friend now who is living in Section Eight housing and she can barely afford her OWN rent and she's a bus driver with a son. So, if she can barely afford her own housing in Section Eight property with a child, what do you think someone with NOTHING is going to do?

Posted on 06/16/2007 at 6:06:00 PM

Jeanne, and if you weren't able to bathe yourself, feed yourself, or rest in a warm or air-conditioned home (especially if you grew up used to that), wouldn't you be a little downtrodden? I really couldn't give a damn whether they use it for liquor or food. I'd drink too if I were on the street. What are they supposed to be doing? The government obviously isn't all that worried about their nutritional habits and some can barely get food for the day, so why are you concerned about them getting drugs? And by the way, there are plenty of people with housing and money out the ass who are drinking and doing drugs too, and they don't even remotely have the problems that homeless people do. So tell me this. Are you against drinking and drugs altogether or only for the homeless?

Posted on 06/16/2007 at 6:06:00 PM

First of all, Jeanne, I've been to Miami twice and the amount of homeless people there doesn't even begin to equate to the number I see in Chicago, and these are people who are trying to make some sort of living with selling Streetwise newspapers. For you to say no one has a reason to be homeless tells me just how privileged you really are. The economy is not the best with the war; people are constantly being fired for jobs; and even cheap jobs are going overseas. Homeless people cannot get a job without a mailing address. If you're so sure that there's no reason for homeless people to be homeless, let them use your mailing address to find a job. Now what?

Posted on 06/16/2007 at 6:06:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 22 Next >>