AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.

Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!

Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories
Politics Daily

Florida Homeless Advocates Claim 1st Amendment Right to Meet, Eat in Park

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Mark I. Pinsky
Mark I. Pinsky
Contributor
Author Bio »
Contact Author »
Subscribe :
ORLANDO, Fla. – The U.S. Supreme Court, in its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, ruled that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political advertising.
With the Court's 5-4 imprimatur, businesses, billionaires and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured piles of cash into last year's mid-term elections, resulting in significant gains for Republican candidates.
This week, a federal appeals court in Atlanta is considering this issue from the other end of the socio-economic spectrum: Does the First Amendment extend to political and religious activists who want to feed the homeless in a downtown Orlando public park?
In an unusual hearing, all 12 members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District are considering whether a feisty, ragtag group of good Samaritans, leftists, libertarians and anarchists who make up the local chapter of Food Not Bombs – along with a local church, the First Vagabonds Church of God – have the right to feed Orlando's homeless twice a month in Lake Eola Park.
The groups argue their right to assemble, distribute printed literature and practice religion are being denied.
The controversy began in 2006, when the the Orlando City Council passed an ordinance banning the feeding groups of over 25 people more than twice a year within a two-mile radius of City Hall, which encompasses Lake Eola Park.
The measure was supported by the city's mayor, Democrat Buddy Dyer, and pushed by area merchants, who charged that the feedings were frightening away their customers and residents of the park's adjoining, gentrifying neighborhood.
The following year, in April, Food Not Bombs young leader, Eric Montanez, was arrested for serving food to 30 people -- five more than allowed -- in the park.
"The city is criminalizing homelessness and poverty and criminalizing individuals and organizations in the community that are trying to address those problems," the pierced, pony-tailed Montanez told the Orlando Sentinel.
Food Not Bombs, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, then challenged the ordinance, litigation which has since ping-ponged up the judicial ladder, with conflicting decisions.
A court originally blocked Orlando from enforcing the ordinance, ruling that it violated the group's freedom of speech and religion. A three-judge panel later reveres ed that ruling.
This week, the homeless advocates are getting another chance as the full appeals court reconsiders the case.
So far, oral arguments seem to have exposed "a rift in the court on the issue," AP reported. "Several judges suggested that feeding people in the park shouldn't be considered protected free speech. Others noted how the act of breaking bread has significant religious meaning that needed to be protected."
The ordinance has been a sore point in the city for years.
In a column in the Orlando Sentinel at the time of Montanez's arrest in 2007, Rabbi Aaron Rubinger of Congregation Ohev Shalom wrote that he was "ashamed that my city would prohibit anyone from acting as his 'brother's keeper,' as our scriptures command of us . . . I would urge all people of faith, but especially my fellow clergy, to join together to help Orlando regain its moral bearings and not turn its back upon the Lord's needy. In my humble opinion, our community's civic leaders, well intentioned as they may be, would appear to be in need of spiritual guidance on this matter."
Orlando is not alone in its struggles with the homeless. Some cities see the homeless as an urban embarrassment, particularly if they depend on tourism, as does Orlando, home to theme parks including Disney, Universal and Sea World.
Maintaining downtown Orlando's squeaky clean image image has been on-going effort. The City Council once tried to require panhandlers to apply for begging permits, and to confine their panhandling to daylight hours. And it's not only the homeless. Drunken young people, vomiting or passed out on downtown sidewalks after leaving clubs early Sunday mornings, raised complaints from church-goers, and unsuccessful calls for a curfew.
On Tuesday in Atlanta, Orlando's city attorneys argued that Food Not Bombs' soup kitchens in city parks caused safety and sanitary problems and strained city resources.
But Jacqueline Dowd, attorney for Food Not Bombs, told judges that the homeless "deserve to be treated like anyone else, and they have equal rights to the parks."
Regardless of what the Atlanta panel of judges decides, it is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Filed Under: Supreme Court, Human Rights
Tagged: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Homelessness, Panhandling, Poverty
More articles from Mark I. Pinsky »

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

4 Comments

Filter by:
Bob B

Why is it, that folks in 21st century are still bound by a document written in the 17th century by White men 21 years and older and being property owners, exclusive of all others? One would think, that we could call for a Constiutional convention and write a new document that has input from all people, allows citizens to act as a balance against the federal government through a National Proposition process (similar to what many States already have)and is able to reflect in its content the times in which we live and the problems associated with those times. The original Consitution wasn't devinely inspired and Americans of today are surely as capable as the founding fathers were at that time, to prepare a satisfactory document for our times. Furthermore, I believe that the oath of office for anyone should not be to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic' - but to "preserve, protect and defend the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. And all rights and priveleges granted therein shall be limited to US citizens, when appropriate and to those legally residing in the US and/or its teretories. There also should not be different classes of US citizens. A US citizen, natural born - or naturalized (with a minimum time established when running for public office), is a US citizen, with all rights, privileges and responsiblities pertaining thereto.

February 17 2011 at 11:09 AM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Bob B's comment
oldengineera2

Answer: Because it has guided us through the greatest period of personal liberty and prosperity known to history, while providing the mechanisms for correcting its flaws through the action of amendment. Many notable changes have come about in that way without the disruption and inequities of revolution, notably the elimination of slavery and the more broadly-extended franchise. I encourage you to lobby for amendments to implement your suggestions, if you feel strongly about them.

February 17 2011 at 1:45 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
truthforfreedom

You are kidding right?

Mainly, the Constitution provides the framework for our republican form of government. It confers specific authority to each of the branches of government and to the several states. And it provides for certain protections of civil rights that no majority can abridge or abrogate. The framers also knew that there would be times it would need to be amended. There are proceedures for that within that framework.

I am astounded.

February 17 2011 at 4:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
randyw6735

Local church groups attempt to feed the hungry/homeless where they are, at a local park.
The Supreme court will need to decide if this is legal.
Never mind, I have no comment..

February 16 2011 at 10:48 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
%PostTitle%
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>

News From Our Partners