[Ed. – It sounds like there’s been a problem with panhandlers staking out ATMs. But it also sounds like the ordinance has a more generalized intent, or at least a more generalized effect. Judge says it infringes on First Amendment rights. Hard to win with this one.]
I’ve written a bunch of stories about the homeless problem in cities on the west coast. So when I first saw this story my thought was, ‘Oh, boy, this sounds like a terrible idea.’ But I have to confess that on second thought I’m not so sure. Maybe the judge got this one right.
A federal judge ordered an immediate halt Thursday to Sacramento’s ordinance against aggressive panhandling, saying “this is a direct First Amendment case” involving the free speech rights of individuals seeking donations from passersby. …
[…]
[I]f we’re just talking about someone sitting near an ATM at a grocery store exit with a sign, I’m not sure we should criminalize that absent other factors. Yes, the speech in question is begging and yes that’s a nuisance to most people, but the right to speak (or hold a sign) in a public space, absent other threatening or aggressive behavior, ought not to be criminalized.
