After reading the draft ordinance to regulate aggressive and deceptive solicitation I found for the most part to it seemed pretty basic. I would imagine that many other cities have ordinances just like this. However if it were to be constitutionally challenged I’m not sure that it would all stand up to it. It would be dealing with the First Amendment rights. Freedom of Speech and the right to assemble in particularly.
They list many places in which people are not allowed for solicitation. I’m not totally sure but I would think that it could be abridging your right to assemble peacefully. As long as there not verbally assaulting anyone or blocking traffic / businesses I would think it would be there right to assemble where they please. Also by saying which public places you can be and not be I think would be infringing on freedom of speech. Because all these people are doing is talking, asking you for something by not letting them do that at certain public places would be infringe on there right of freedom of speech. Also because all of these things are only for solicitors and not for other people on the street it would be unconstitutional.
For instance under the “Manner” section in C. which says that they cannot follow a person who walks or moves away from them. What about people who are trying to get you to vote for a certain person and follow you while you walk by them so they can try and give you a pamphlet. Or in part G. where it says two or more solicitors if prohibited. I’m not sure about Chico but in many other cities I always see religious people going on and on about their religion and there is always more than two of them.
The Term Paper on Hate Speech Censorship Freedom Dershowitz
Filtered Freedom Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed ...
Because these rules do not apply to everyone who is talking on the street I believe that they would be held unconstitutional. I think what this is doing is making it so it almost impossible for anyone to engage in solicitation by not letting them be anywhere. I know they may annoy some people but some of those solicitors are actually hungry with no money or are a person who is stranded who actually needs the money. In my old town I have seen solicitors beg for money all day and I have seen them at the end of the day go into the local grocery store buy food for them and their dog with the little money that they had got. I’m not saying they all do this but some of them definitely do. Anyway I have shown you why I think it is unconstitutional and I think that not all of these rules should go into effect.
I do believe however that some of these are good rules for solicitors like ones that say how if they ask for something they need like food then go and buy alcohol with it. Or the ones about using abuse of profane language, blocking pedestrian or vehicle traffic, etc.
