The city fathers of Orlando, apparently upset at not ranking #1 meanest city towards homeless humans, have started/escalated harassing people downtown. God forbid Gainesville, FL pass us on the list as they already have the University of FL and we only have U of West Bithlo.
Thus, the Orlando Police Department has decided to crack down on "the homeless problem," by violating the First Amendment rights of people in the City Mean.
Sure we gots drive by shootings, a murder inside a downtown public parking garage, carjacking, and a brawl outside a downtown bar injuring off duty OPD officers, but we have to crack down on those filthy beggar junkies. God forbid one of them approach us as we try to eat our pricey meals outside, comfortable with our income level and underwater mortgages. God forbid the asshat, John Potter, quoted below, actually learn to say no to beggars or even--in Jesus' name--offer to buy a meal rather than give cash.
Sure, we can forgive Mr. Potter because he works his ass off trying to keep a roof over his head, and he has probably let the media and popular idea of the homeless problem to pollute his thinking.
What would he think were he to have to make the streets his home?
It helps to define humans without adequate shelter as "the homeless" or a problem; it allows good, decent,honest, church goin' folk to define other of God's children as part of an underclass unworthy of decent treatment or respect.
Way to go, City Mean!
[ORLANDO, Fla. —
The homeless problem in downtown Orlando has gotten so severe, police have put together a special detail.
WFTV's Daralene Jones learned they'll be arresting panhandlers, and others who harass residents.
Not long ago, the city installed collection meters downtown to try to stop the panhandling. They did, but the meters don't bring in much money, which goes to agencies that help the homeless.
John Potter, a server at Metro Espresso Pizza, said he loves everything about working and living downtown, except the homeless problem.
"People sitting at tables, trying to enjoy a meal and they're getting accosted by people wanting money or a cigarette," said Potter.
Potter said that even worse than that, the patio furniture outside has become an open invitation for the homeless to sleep out front overnight.
Other business owners show up in the morning to find urine and feces outside their front doors.
"All of the furniture out here, either you have to tie it up, or it has to come inside," said Potter.
The complaints from downtown business owners and residents have hit city hall.
WFTV found out Orlando police have initiated what they're calling a "transient detail."] emphasis added 'cause phrase really angers me.
Showing posts with label City mean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City mean. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Orlando 1; 1st Amendment 0; Still Pissed Off in O'Town
As recounted in a previous post, the City of Orlando has made it a crime with penalties including incareration for panhandling on city streets if done outside of restricted areas, measured in a few square feet and bounded by blue paint.
This amounts to a patently unconstitutional violation of free speech in a public forum and protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
From the syllabus to the USSC decision: "1. An airport terminal operated by a public authority is a non-public forum, and thus a ban on solicitation need only satisfy a reasonableness standard. Pp. 677-683.
(a) The extent to which the Port Authority can restrict expressive activity on its property depends on the nature of the forum. Regulation of traditional public fora or designated public fora survives only if it is narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest, but limitations on expressive activity conducted on any other government-owned property need only be reasonable to survive. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 46. Pp. 677-679."
(emphasis added)
Public sidewalks by definition have to receive consideration as public forums thus protecting people exercising their right to free speech by asking for $.
For Jesus' sake people, feed the hungry.
[For you have been a refuge to the poor,
a refuge to the needy in their distress,
a shelter from the rainstorm
and a shade from the heat.
- Isaiah 25:4]
[There is no dispute that the Hare Krishnas' activities are protected by the First Amendment. Rather, the constitutional dispute is over the character of the airport itself.
If an area is not a "public forum," the Government is not constitutionally obliged to accommodate speech or other activities that would have full constitutional protection on a street corner, for example.] Emphasis added
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/11/nyregion/supreme-court-to-review-soliciting-at-3-big-airports.html
This amounts to a patently unconstitutional violation of free speech in a public forum and protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
From the syllabus to the USSC decision: "1. An airport terminal operated by a public authority is a non-public forum, and thus a ban on solicitation need only satisfy a reasonableness standard. Pp. 677-683.
(a) The extent to which the Port Authority can restrict expressive activity on its property depends on the nature of the forum. Regulation of traditional public fora or designated public fora survives only if it is narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest, but limitations on expressive activity conducted on any other government-owned property need only be reasonable to survive. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 46. Pp. 677-679."
(emphasis added)
Public sidewalks by definition have to receive consideration as public forums thus protecting people exercising their right to free speech by asking for $.
For Jesus' sake people, feed the hungry.
[For you have been a refuge to the poor,
a refuge to the needy in their distress,
a shelter from the rainstorm
and a shade from the heat.
- Isaiah 25:4]
[There is no dispute that the Hare Krishnas' activities are protected by the First Amendment. Rather, the constitutional dispute is over the character of the airport itself.
If an area is not a "public forum," the Government is not constitutionally obliged to accommodate speech or other activities that would have full constitutional protection on a street corner, for example.] Emphasis added
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/11/nyregion/supreme-court-to-review-soliciting-at-3-big-airports.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)