The sponsors of a Richmond ordinance to crack down on panhandling deserve a cheer for withdrawing the measure. They shouldn't have introduced it in the first place. And they ought to give the idea up for good instead of hoping merely to revise it. But at least they have made a strategic retreat, and that is something.
The measure would have trampled all over the First Amendment by forbidding individuals to ask for money from passing, or even stationary, motor vehicles. Its broad language would have outlawed even sitting quietly on the sidewalk with a sign reading, "Hungry -- Please Help."
The sponsors have tried to tart up the measure in the raiment of public safety, but that is mischievous misrepresentation. The real problem is that panhandlers are not a pretty lot and some people wish they would get out of view. Similar attitudes distort Henrico's approach to humans on medians.
Councilman Bruce Tyler wants to revise the ordinance so that it would exempt nonprofit fundraising, such as the fill-the-boot campaign by local firefighters on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association. There is no substantive constitutional distinction between a firefighter standing near the street and asking for money and a homeless person standing near the street and asking for money. The only difference is a matter of taste.
Taste is a terrible reason to pass an ordinance that infringes on free speech. Indeed, it often has been observed that speakers who enjoy public favor need no protection from the First Amendment. It exists precisely to protect those speakers who are likely to provoke animosity or revulsion. Supporters of the withdrawn ordinance and similar proposals seemingly miss that point altogether.
Perhaps even one cheer is too many.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement