| |||||||||||||||||
Member Opinions: By: cbosen on 6/29/11
“Knowing that the City is amending its ordinances, we are surprised that the ACLU has chosen to file a lawsuit against the City at this time,”. The lawsuit against the City, according to this story, is for a past violation of the vendors' Civil Rights under Constitutional First Amendment Freedom of Speech. The fact the City is amending the ordinance has no bearing on that past Civil Rights violation. However, such an amendment does make it appear that the City now recognizes that their ordinance did in fact trample on the rights of individuals to utilize public areas such as sidewalks to exercise free speech. Good to see that the unconstitutional ordinance is being amended! By: Styles on 6/29/11
If I need a choice on whether or not to buy a newspaper, I'd rather use a newspaper machine that's set up on the sidewalk or in a store. It's safer for everybody... nobody walks around in traffic risking serious injury and I don't have to open my car window to a stranger if I decide to buy, right? In addition, I get to take the time to preview the headlines through the glass pane in the stand... This helps me decide whether the papers articles are worth reading. Now here's Cee-Lo Green with the weather... By: yardart on 6/29/11
Totally agree with Styles. A newspaper vending machine does not violate the rights of anyone. Entitlement is a powerful and destructive force. By: cbosen on 6/29/11
@yardart -- Considering that Williamson County has been named "The Most Conservative Friendly County" in the U.S., it would seem that protecting Constitutional rights such as those that apply to public spaces such as sidewalks, and to dissemination of news & opinion would be a top priority. (As it apparently is, if the ordinance is currently being amended), The people accepting donations for these papers have a Constitutional right -- as do you -- to be on the sidewalk doing what they're doing. In fact, the Constitution ENTITLES them to that inalienable right. Those who seek to limit those rights for aesthetics are also a powerful & destructive force. The Constitution must be applied equally to all -- and the Supreme Court has said traditional public forums such as sidewalks and parks belong not to the government, but to the public in cases such as these. Saying that their rights were not violated or infringed is a myopic view in my opinion. By: jimh on 6/30/11
I want to applaud the city of Brentwood for trying to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I have seen homeless individuals whom I know and have tried to help in the past, selling these newspapers in the middle of rush hour traffic. They are not on any sidewalk, they are in the midst of busy traffic. I believe this is an unintended consequence of the Contributors efforts to help these people, but the practical result is the endangerment of the very ones the Contributor is trying to help. I hope and pray the city will continue to try to do the right thing, in the face of any opposition from the ACLU, to protect those who may be even inadvertently put in danger by the well meaning. I do not know the details of the ordinance, but I hope the city can find a balance between respecting the free usage of public spaces while protecting the safety of all of our citizens and visitors. By: ducksnjeeps on 6/30/11
Anything that Hedy Weinberg represents is a good thing to oppose. You really do not even have to look critically at the facts. Her endorsement is enough. She is determined to undermine this country. She is a shakedown artist and I wish her nothing but "Epic Failure" in life. What about those of us who do not wish to have our already stalled traffic further delayed while these folks try to hawk thier wares. What about my rights. Where are you on that Hedy. By: BWDolphan on 6/30/11
Could not agree more with ducksnjeeps. These people (ACLU) are nothing other than major league busybodies, who want inflict their twisted ideas on normal people. By: yardart on 6/30/11
I have fed and washed laundry for the "homeless" over many many years. No one is saying the Contributor cannot be disseminated and the Ist amendment must be protected. One just cannot hawk the paper or anything else, interfering with roadways, byways and sidewalks. The practice is obviously dangerous, plain and simple. We all have the right of way not just a entitled few. I wonder what would happen if I tried selling the magazine I work for in this manner? The thought of it is absurd because of the unsafe context. By: cbosen on 6/30/11
@ducksnjeeps -- You are right! In fact, I'd like to get that Constitutional amendment regarding Right to Not Have Already Stalled Traffic Further Delayed put on a bumper sticker -- can you please tell me which amendment that is? Of course, the same could be said for your assertion that, "You really do not even have to look critically at the facts." Such open-armed embracing of ignorance as a virtue is really what's dangerous in our country. @yardart -- Selling on the sidewalks is a right for anyone -- whether they are in quotation marks or not. Obviously the City can restrict people being in traffic out in the street (permits are sometimes given for these temporary fundraising efforts). However, you're actually defending the right of the "gubmint" to say, "No, you as a citizen are not free to your Constitutional rights on the public sidewalks by distributing -- for donations -- your views & opinions." Sidewalks & public forums such as parks are different from the roadways themselves. But you suggest that nothing can be "hawked" on sidewalks, roadways, or byways -- the Constitution happens to disagree. By: localboy on 7/1/11
Good posts, cbosen. By: BrentwoodNative on 7/1/11
First of all a Civics lesson is obviously in need. There is a difference between inalienable rights and unalienable rights. If you don't know your rights, you sure shouldn't try to argue them. As Americans, we have unalieinable rights and they are not Constitutional rights but rights guaranteed by the Cretor himself and laid out in the Declaration of Independence. By: cbosen on 7/1/11
@BrentwoodNative -- Unalienable rights are not limited or tied to Americans exclusively -- they are endowed by the Creator to humans regardless of nationality. I used the term inalienable because the Constitutional amendments protect people from government infringement of rights such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Assembly for example. The Contributor vendors who are U.S. citizens, in fact, have both inalienable AND unalienable rights. Brentwood's ordinance infringed on their inalienable right which is why I used the term. If, however, Brentwood said everyone EXCEPT homeless people were welcome to vend on public sidewalks, that would be an example of violating Creator-granted rights of equality as a human being in my opinion. Instead the City's ordinance actually infringed on everyone's Constitutional right -- The Contributer & ACLU just took the legal action before anyone else. Login and voice your opinion! | ||||||||||||||||
Email
Print| Advertisements | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
