Impact Of Heffron And Our Ordinance Place Restrictions On Where Individuals
1307 WordsMar 25, 20176 Pages
Heffron is similar to our case, because both the regulation in Heffron and our ordinance place restrictions on where individuals are permitted to engage in solicitation. Heffron is wholly similar to our case because the Aston panhandling ordinance was not enacted to silence one particular message and was not an attempt to regulate ideas, as the ordinance applies evenhandedly to all who wish to engage in solicitation in the Square area, regardless of whether the solicitors purpose is private, commercial or charitable. The ordinance expressly states that no verbal solicitations for immediate donations of money or other things of value are permitted “regardless of the solicitor’s purpose or intended use of the money or other thing of value.”…show more content…
Petitioners speech is not subjected to a more stringent standard than those made by charities, solicitations made by political figures who wish to campaign, or other homeless individuals similarly situated. Since the City of Aston’s panhandling ordinance treats all solicitations equally, regardless of the message being conveyed or the solicitor’s purpose or purported use of the contribution, the statute is content-neutral.
In conclusion, the City of Aston’s panhandling ordinance is content-neutral.
A. The Aston City Ordinance Is Narrowly Tailored To Serve A Significant Government Interest Of Protecting The Citizens And The Local Economy From Threatening Solicitations And Only Affects The Area Where The Panhandling Problem Was Most Pervasive.
A content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech that is narrowly tailored to serve a significant interest “need not be the least restrictive means” of doing so. Ward, 491 U.S. at 798. Instead, a regulation is narrowly tailored so long as the regulation permits a significant governmental interest that “would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation” and the law does not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interest.” Id. at 799.
In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, an unincorporated association held rock concerts in an