Our View

Our View

The beat goes on in panhandling law debate

This seemingly endless tit-for-tat battle between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union over the state’s anti-loitering law appears the state’s revised interpretation still is unconstitutional, at least according to U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson, and he just might be right.

Once again, Wilson blocked the state from enforcing its latest version of the anti-loitering law, saying that by prohibiting a certain type of speech — begging — the law is “plainly unconstitutional.”

We would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t get annoyed, intimidated or feel threatened at “beggars” approaching them for money, but by the same token the way Judge Wilson explained his preliminary injunction that keeps the state from enforcing Arkansas Annotated 5-71-213(a)(3) until a final order is entered in a lawsuit, he just may have a valid point.

Okay, we understand Wilson’s ruling, released recently, that states under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment that states lawmakers may not “restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,” without a compelling reason to do so.

Wilson even agreed that holding a sign asking for gifts or charity could “create a traffic hazard or impediment”, and to a lesser degree of certainty, that it is possible that holding a sign asking for gifts or charity might cause others to feel threatened, harassed, or alarmed.

Now, here is how Wilson explained this situation in a way we should clearly all understand. He said, “Section 5-71-213(a)(3) restricts ONLY a certain species of speech (asking for gifts or charity.) Thus, Wilson said, “if two people created a traffic hazard or impediment by holding signs, but one asks passers-by to vote for a political candidate and the other asks passers-by to give to a charity, Section 571-213(a)(3) would apply only to the person whose signs asks passers-by to give to a charity. This makes perfect sense.

Accordingly, Wilson made clear the section is a content-based restriction of constitutionally protected speech.

It was also interesting when Wilson said, “nothing in the record, nor common sense, suggests that a wide variety of other speech (e.g. wearing a Statue of Liberty costume while waving to oncoming traffic and soliciting tax-return customers, encouraging folks to get right with the Lord, or stumping for a political candidate would be less likely that begging to cause a traffic hazard or impediment.”

To us, Judge Wilson explanation is perfectly understandable, and furthermore he emphasized that there are many other laws on the books that address the conduct identified in 5-71-213(a)(3). He went on to name as examples laws against criminal trespass; harassment; assault; stopping, standing or parking in certain places; highway solicitation; coercion; disorderly conduct; obstructing a highway or other public passage; soliciting rides in certain places; and impeding the flow of traffic.

So then, with all this fully explained it does appear state lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board and take into consideration what Judge Wilson so clearly pointed out.

In the meantime, we suggest cities, such as West Memphis, counties and the state instruct law enforcement to enforce the other laws that Judge Wilson pointed out in dealing with “beggars.”