🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53j6ah$fcu@hpax.cup.hp.com>, Ken Mintz <mintz@cup.hp.com> wrote:

>  I agree with other responders that if this is the legislative intent, it
>  clearly tramples on the First Amendment.
>
>  As to the question of whether such a "normal" activity could be considered
>  protected speech, I hasten to note that __a__ supreme court (can't recall
>  if it was Calif or US) has ruled that panhandling(!) is protected speech.
>
>  Not that I agree with the ruling.  But if mere panhandling can be construed
>  as protected speech (I don't think the court ruling qualified the activity
>  based on intent to express), it is no stretch of imagination at all to
>  construe __intentional__ expression as protected speech, even if that
>  expression is an activity considered "normal" behavior.

Yeah Ken, panhandling is protected, and it just like every other form of
speech it is subject to reasonable regulation.  The Supreme Court says you
can't keep someone from panhandling, BUT they said cities and states can
pass laws that keep people from panhandling near ATM machines, blocking 
public doorways to do so, persuing individuals their soliciting and ban
other types of aggresive panhandling. 

Just like this situation - you can't women from breast feeding and this
bill doesn't attempt to.  It is a ban against aggressive and offensive
public displays.   

Paul S. Galvanek