Willis, the court assessed the constitutionality of a Lakewood ordinance that prohibited begging at on and off ramps of state highways and at intersection of major arterials roads. Recently, the Washington Supreme Court signaled a shift in how it will assess restrictions on begging and soliciting in response to Reed. The Court in Reed held that a law is content-based anytime that it defines the regulated speech based on a “particular subject matter or by its function or purpose.” Such content-based restrictions are presumed to be unconstitutional and are only upheld if the government can prove that it furthers a “compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Changes in Washington While that case was not specifically about begging, it was about a different form of speech, signs, and its holding has been understood as applying to restrictions on speech in general. However, the way in which such laws are scrutinized has recently changed in light of a United States Supreme Court decision, Reed v. Such laws have been defended on the grounds that they are “content-neutral” because they only restricted begging or soliciting in certain places or at certain times. Many municipalities have long had laws that have placed specific restrictions on begging or soliciting, such as laws that restricted begging by major roads, within a certain distance of an outdoor eating area or ATM, or that restricted begging at night. Background on Begging and Soliciting Laws As such, these laws are scrutinized strictly by the courts, and must be well crafted to survive that scrutiny. This is because many restrictions on begging are, in essence, a restriction on a type of speech and, thus, implicate the First Amendment. Ordinances regulating begging and soliciting have recently become a point of particular contention among municipalities throughout the country, including in Washington.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |