Free Speech Now! (And Eat at McDonald’s)

MEDIA MAVEN / BY MARCY BURSTINER
NORTH COAST JOURNAL

Free Speech Now! (And Eat at McDonald’s)

(JUNE 7, 2012)  In the movie Norma Rae, Sally Field plays a textile worker who tries to organize a union at her mill. In the movie’s climax, thugs try to throw her out of the factory. She scribbles the word “union,” climbs up on a table and holds it up. For a moment everyone in the factory stares at her. Then, one by one, the workers shut off their machines. These days it seems that people who try to fight a good fight get that kind of support only in the movies.

On May 24, Fortuna resident Janelle Egger filed suit against the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors challenging the constitutionality of Urgency Ordinance 2477, which bans camping, animals and defecation outside the courthouse and also bans the hanging of signs. In my April 5 column, I questioned the constitutionality of a law in which the only new prohibition was the hanging of signs and the gathering for peaceful protest. Existing laws covered all other activities the ordinance specified.

Police arrested Egger April 7 in front of the courthouse as she participated in a candlelight vigil held to support free speech. This is a woman who sued the city of Fortuna in 2009 under the California Public Records Act because it had refused to turn over documents about a proposal for a new water tank. The courts agreed with her on that one and ordered the city to pay for her attorney fees.

This time, she filed her 24-page brief, with another 48 pages of exhibits, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  She doesn’t have a lawyer; she’s doing it herself.

This is one of two ongoing First Amendment suits involving local laws. This month, Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen will rule on the constitutionality of an Arcata ordinance passed to curb aggressive panhandling. Attorney Peter Martin filed that suit on behalf of Arcata resident Richard Salzman.

The Arcata law has multiple parts. Part A specifically bans aggressive panhandling. But parts B through G ban all panhandling in specific areas, such as near ATM machines or supermarket entrances. If aggressive panhandling is the problem, why not stop with A? Why include the rest?

This is what I find most troubling: The ease with which local governments pass speech infringement laws, how little effort they spend trying to keep them as narrow as possible and how few people these laws seem to bother.

Perhaps more troubling is that certain types of speech seem to be more vulnerable to government infringement than others.

In this paper in March, Editor Carrie Peyton Dahlberg wrote about how difficult it is to ban ugly billboards that line our highway. In 2008, a federal appeals court upheld a ban on electronic billboards only if it were content-neutral — a community would have to ban all electronic billboards. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court approved an anti-sign law in Los Angeles, but that’s because it banned all signs on utility poles. Back in 1981, the Supreme Court rejected a San Diego law banning billboards that created exceptions for specific categories of speech, such as political campaign signs and religious signs. “With respect to noncommercial speech, the city may not choose the appropriate subjects for public discourse,” the court said in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego. Because the court has insisted on blanket bans, local governments think twice about passing these laws. Commercial signs produce money.

In 2010, in its infamous Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress can’t limit the money an organization or even a corporation spends on donations to committees not directly affiliated with a political candidate, because that would prevent these committees from buying television time or creating expensive brochures or commercials. That would abridge their freedom of speech.

Here is the pattern I see. L.A. could ban ALL signs on utility poles. But what corporations advertise on utility poles? Few communities act to ban all electronic signs or billboards, because they generate money. If you, or your kid, or a homeless guy on the street, holds up a cardboard sign, it generates no money.  The handwritten signs tacked onto the courthouse fence generate no permit fees. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the government can’t limit the money used to create documentaries or buy air time.

Twice this year I explained how paid speech has more power than “free” speech. Now I see that speech you buy is more protected than speech that is free. It is as if the First Amendment now says: Congress shall make no law abridging the payment for speech or press.

Thank goodness that in this community we have troublemakers like Eggers and Salzman who take it upon themselves to fight for the free speech rights we all share. We’ll see which way the courts swing on these issues.

But for their efforts, Egger and Salzman seem to get more grief than support in the communities where they live. Maybe we are all just too inundated with advertising these days. I find ads in paperback books I pick up at the book shop, on the back of my grocery store receipts, on the back of a T-shirt I must stare at when on line for some event. So we find offensive handwritten signs that don’t try to push products on us, that simply assert someone’s rights as a citizen or that ask for money because someone is hungry and doesn’t have a roof over his head.

Here is an idea. Homeless people should trade signs. Instead of standing on a corner and asking for money for themselves or their family, they can ask for money for a guy on the next corner. He in turn would advertise the plight of the next guy and so on. That way they aren’t panhandling. They are advertising. And that is something governments and the courts seem to protect.  And Janelle, get yourself a corporate sponsor. Maybe Pepsi Free?

Marcy Burstiner is a professor of journalism and mass communication at Humboldt State University.

---

COMMENT / BY RICHARD SALZMAN /

Thank you, Marcy Burstiner, for covering my Free Speech lawsuit against the City of Arcata for its (ironically named) Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance. I don’t see how Arcata can suggest that the simple act of holding up a sign, which is the most passive form of panhandling, can qualify as aggressive; and I object to restrictions on speech based on content (as Ms. Burstiner pointed out, you can hold up a sign to advertise or sell something but not one asking for a handout).

I think it’s important for people to consider that if you believe in the protection of free speech and in defending our Bill of Rights, then you need to be willing to defend the rights of people you don’t agree with, or find annoying. Or, in the case of the ACLU defending the Nazis’ right to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, even people you find repulsive.

As Voltaire stated, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Both my lawsuit and Janelle Egger’s lawsuit against Humboldt County for its ordinance restricting protests on Courthouse property are being supported in part by the Humboldt Civil Liberties Defense Fund, of which I am a member. We welcome your support and I encourage anyone wishing to contribute to help fund these cases, and our overall efforts to defend civil liberties in Humboldt County, to visit us online at HCLDF.org.

---

ADD YOUR COMMENT HERE: northcoastjournal.com/
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2012/06/07/free-speech-now-and-eat-mcdonalds/

2nd Congressional District Humboldt County Field Organizers

2nd California Congressional District Humboldt County Field Organizers outside of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee annual Chicken By the Sea dinner on June 3rd 2012

Left to right,
Shane Brinton
for Norm Solomon
Conrad Gregory
for Jared Huffman
Sofia Pereira
for Stacy Lawson
Richard Salzman
for Susan Adams


Election results

Judge to make decision on Arcata panhandling law; ordinance remains a rift in city politics

Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard
05/28/2012

A Humboldt County Superior Court judge will rule on the constitutionality of Arcata's panhandling ordinance, which limits the locations where people are allowed to panhandle and carries penalties for aggressive panhandling.

The ordinance was the subject of a lawsuit by Richard Salzman that went to trial last week.
Salzman's Attorney Peter Martin has until June 4 to submit a supplemental brief, at which point the judge will have 90 days to issue a decision on the case.

Martin said Salzman wants the law to be struck down as unconstitutional, any convictions under the law set aside and any fines levied against violators returned.

”I think the city of Arcata went too far, and I hope the judge will see it that way,” Martin said.
Salzman said he had no objection to the parts of the ordinance that ban aggressive panhandling such as touching someone, following them or blocking their way.

”I'm very sensitive to how inappropriate behavior is offensive,” Salzman said.

He said the ordinance goes too far with restricting the language allowed on signs.

”As a layperson, my feeling about it is they're trying to restrict what the signs say,” Salzman said, adding that political protest signs and advertisements don't face similar limitations.

”Somehow a sign that says 'hey buddy can you spare a dime?' offends sensibilities?”

Salzman said the aggressive panhandling that most agree is unacceptable should not be lumped in with holding signs.

”That's the most passive form of panhandling,” Salzman said.

Arcata City Councilman Mark Wheetley, who voted for the ordinance, said it was developed based on research and surveys of municipal panhandling ordinances throughout the country.
”It didn't come without a lot of careful review and consideration,” Wheetley said.

Wheetley still supports the ordinance but could not speak specifically about the litigation the city is engaged in with Salzman.

”It wasn't done in a vacuum,” Wheetley said. “I have received lots of positive feedback since it went into place.”

Vice Mayor Shane Brinton voted against the ordinance when it was enacted in 2010.

“I've continued to maintain the position that the ordinance may be unconstitutional,” Brinton said. “At the very least, it violates the spirit of the First Amendment.”

Brinton did think there was a legal precedent for the prohibition on aggressive panhandling.

Brinton said he couldn't comment on the merits of the Salzman case or its arguments, but added he would rather have seen the ordinance never enacted to save the city from having to defend it.
”I'm not really enthusiastic about any of this,” Brinton said.

Arcata City Manager Randy Mendosa said that as of Thursday, the city had spent $4,988 defending the ordinance, though that figure would rise as the trial hours had not yet been billed.
Mendosa said the ordinance has been successful for the city, cutting down on the “bad behavior factor.”

”Anecdotally, people seem fine with it,” Mendosa said. “I haven't heard any other complaints.”
Arcata Police Department Lt. Ryan Peterson said enforcement of the law mostly comes in the form of education. Police officers' first response is to inform people where they can and can't panhandle, and Peterson said most are compliant.

”The number of citations issued for panhandling is extremely low,” Peterson said. “What this gives the community is the ability to notify the police if there is an aggressive panhandler. It's certainly not designed to eradicate panhandling.”

Peterson said enforcement of the ordinance is complaint-driven, meaning officers only respond to public calls regarding panhandling. He said the majority -- more than 90 percent -- of calls are related to aggressive panhandling.

”Those are the kind of calls that really are frustrating,” Peterson said.

Salzman said that he will appeal if the judge rules against him. He says it's the first time he's been involved in a court proceeding but that it was his only recourse when the city council rejected his request to change the language of the ordinance.

”If they overstep their bounds of authority, I'm going to go to the judicial branch to rectify that incursion on our constitutional civil liberties,” Salzman said. “I feel I'm being a patriot.”

Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth@times-standard.com

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_20726853/judge-make-decision-arcata-panhandling-law-ordinance-remains

Unusual Lawsuit: Can City Silence An Already Silent Request?

Unusual Lawsuit: Can City Silence An Already Silent Request?

Arcata, California--Is it illegal to merely hold up a sign asking for
money?

The City of Arcata thinks it is, but a citizen lawsuit contends the city
overstepped its bounds and its panhandling ordinance is unconstitutional.



Arcata taxpayer Richard Salzman, who filed a lawsuit in Humboldt County
Superior Court against the normally ultra-liberal city, said: “If
first they silence the poor and the homeless, and we say nothing, who
will speak up when they try to silence rest of us?”

He noted that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive
panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or even
yelling, would be left unchallenged by his legal action.

But to achieve the city’s goal of criminalizing the 'speech'--or even a
mute appeal--of a few beggars, Arcata has criminalized all charitable
solicitations for money.

Salzman said, "The ironical aspect is that Arcata so far has
spent around $10,000 of the taxpayers' money defending a law so one
would not have to to read a sign asking, 'Buddy, can you spare a
dime?' How insane is that?"

The judge overruled an objection by the city's attorney and allowed a
photo to be entered into evidence that illustrated the absurdity of the law during
the trial on May 23rd 2012.

The court has 90 days to rule on the case. The losing party will then
have the opportunity to appeal.

---

NBC affiliate KIEM News Ch3 lead story

Court date set for anti-panhandling lawsuit against City of Arcata

Richard Salzman stand across from City Hall in violation of the current law.

Arcata, CA–Is it illegal to merely hold up a sign asking for money?

Arcata thinks it is, but a citizen lawsuit contends the city overstepped its bounds and its panhandling ordinance is unconstitutional.

The free speech trial is set to begin at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23rd, in Humboldt County Superior Courtroom 8–and the public is invited to attend.

On March 17th 2012 The Arcata City Council adopted the unlawful panhandling ordinance. As written, the ordinance makes it a crime to merely hold up a sign asking for money. By denying citizens constitutional right of free speech, this lawsuit filed by Richard Salzman contends the City Council overstepped its authority.

Salzman is being represent in this matter by Peter Martin. Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Salzman are board members of the Humboldt Civil Liberties Defense Fund which was created to defend against incursion of the civil liberties of all citizens of Humboldt County.

“If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and we say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence rest of us?” Salzman asked.

He noted that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or yelling, would be left unchallenged by this legal action.

Specifically, Mr. Salzman contends that AMC Sections 4282B, 4282C, 4282D, 4282E, 4282F and 4282G are unconstitutional. The overall impact of these sections is to criminalize begging in a significant percentage of the City.

Begging is a charitable solicitation. The First Amendment clearly protects charitable solicitations. No distinction of constitutional dimension exists between soliciting funds for oneself and for charity. The fact that a beggar keeps the money she receives does not strip the speech of First Amendment protection. A speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because she is paid to speak.

To be lawful, the ordinance must serve a compelling interest that is narrowly drawn to achieve its end. The City’s compelling interest is well-served by the ordinance’s ban on aggressive panhandling, to which Mr. Salzman does not take exception. Mr. Salzman is of the view that ordinance’s ban on begging is not “narrowly tailored.” To achieve the City’s goal of criminalizing the speech of a few beggars, the City has criminalized all charitable solicitations for money. 

The picture above illustrates the problem with the Ordinance. It is OK to hold a sign offer to sell pizza, but Mr. Salman’s sign is illegal.

KIEM Ch 3 news coverage of Anti-Panhandling Lawsuit against City of Arcata

KIEM Ch 3 news coverage of pending lawsuit:

Is it unconstitutional to be told that you cannot panhandle in certain areas?

Well the city of Arcata will answer to the superior court of Humboldt County next week in regards to an ordinance that some say violate freedom of speech.

Taxpayer Richard Salzman, says the city of Arcata has taken the law, too far. According to the litigation council for the city of Arcata: the city has taken the position that it falls in the guidelines of the Constitution--that under the constitution, you can restrict panhandling but not restrict the message.

They also say panhandling is a type of solicitation that California recognizes as retractable for reasonable limitation on time and place.

The ordinance restricts panhandling within 20 feet of places such ATMs, banks, retail entrances, and street corners. The city’s council says it’s mainly restricting the business side of the Arcata plaza and surrounding areas., The Free Speech Trial is set for Wednesday, May 23, 2012.

Video:
 http://kiem-tv.com/node/3372

General Strike May 1, 2012 - Solidarity with Occupy

CALL TO ACTION: MAY 1 St.
May Day 2012

Occupy Wall Street stands in solidarity with the calls for
a day without the 99%, a General Strike, and more!

On May Day, wherever you are:

NO WORK
NO SCHOOL
NO HOUSEWORK
NO SHOPPING
TAKE THE STREETS!

--

6 Ways to Get Ready for the May 1st GENERAL STRIKE
March 11, 2012,

Yesterday, 60,000 marched on Madison to mark the one-year anniversary of the passage of Governor Scott Walker's drastic dismantling of collective bargaining rights for public employees. Last year, Walker's attacks on labor rights sparked massive protests that saw hundreds of thousands occupy the Wisconsin capital building. Their actions prefigured Occupy Wall Street and inspired countless others to take a stand against economic inequality, political injustice, and the tyranny of the 1% enforced through politicians and banksters alike.

This is just one example that people across the globe are actively resisting attacks on the 99%. This year has already seen the largest-ever strike on record in India, hundreds of thousands marching for democracy in Bahrain, general strikes in Montreal and Spain where students once again occupied public space in protest of the austerity measures and spending cuts being enforced by the European banking elite, massive uprisings in the streets of Moscow, and more. Even in the United States, the movement grows. The corporate media claims that Occupy's strength is waning, but they are merely in denial. During the coldest months of this year, the United States has already seen more revolutionary momentum than it has in decades.

This winter, we refocused our energies on fostering ties with local communities, saving homes from corrupt banks and jobs from greedy corporations, and building and expanding our horizontal infrastructure. This #GlobalSpring, we will take the streets again. On May 1st, Occupy Wall Street has called for a General Strike. We are calling on everyone who supports the cause of economic justice and true democracy to take part: No Work, No School, No Housework, No Shopping, No Banking - and most importantly, TAKE THE STREETS!

We are getting ready. Planning is already underway in dozens of cities. Labor organizers, immigrants’ rights groups, artists, Occupiers, faith leaders, and more have all joined in the discussion to get ready. Now, all we need is you. Keep reading to find out how you can get involved!

May 1st, also known as International Workers' Day, is the annual commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, when Chicago police fired on workers during a General Strike for the eight-hour workday. In many countries, May 1st is observed as a holiday. But in the United States, despite the eventual success of the eight-hour-workday campaign, the holiday is not officially recognized. In spite of this, May Day is already a powerful date in the U.S. In 2006, immigrant's rights groups took to the streets in unprecedented numbers in a national "Day Without An Immigrant" - a general strike aimed at proving the economic power of immigrants in the U.S. At least one million people marched in Chicago and Los Angeles alone. Hundreds of thousands more marched throughout cities across the U.S.

Now, in response to call-outs from Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Chicago, Occupy Oakland, and other General Assemblies and affinity groups, the Occupy Movement is preparing to mobilize a General Strike this May 1st in solidarity with struggles already underway to defend the rights of workers, immigrants, and other communities who are resisting oppression. Dozens of Occupations in cities and towns throughout the United States, Canada, and Australia have already endorsed May Day. Here is just a taste of events in the works for New York City:

• 8am-4pm: Midtown action staging zone in Bryant Park.
• Disruptive actions in midtown all day! Hit the 1% where they live and prevent them from getting to work. Let's make this a Day Without the 1%, as well!
• Family friendly, free food, a really, REALLY free market, skillshares, workshops, lectures, art, fun and more!
• 4pm: March to Union Square for solidarity march
• 5:30pm: Solidarity march from Union Square to Wall St.
• 7pm: March to staging area for evening actions
And this is just the beginning. To quote the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, a major Spanish union, who recently called for anational General Strike in Spain on March 29th to protest labor reforms:

For the CNT, the strike on March 29 must be only the beginning of a growing and sustained process of mobilization, one which includes the entire working class and the sectors that are most disadvantaged and affected by the capitalist crisis. This mobilization must put the brakes on the dynamic of constant assaults on our rights, while laying the bases for the recovery and conquest of new social rights with the goal of a deep social transformation.

None of this would be possible without the grassroots support of everyday organizers who volunteer their time to grow the movement against Wall Street greed and political corruption. Here are eight simple things you can do to help advance the cause of equity for all:

Work With Your Local Occupy: There are hundreds of Occupy groups still holding regular meetings and events. Chances are, there's one nearby. (And if there isn't yet - it's easy to start one!) General Assemblies are open to everyone, and everyone has a voice in the consensus planning process. So find your nearest Occupation and go to a GA! If they haven't already endorsed the General Strike, propose it to the group and start planning marches, distributing fliers, and forming direct action groups.

Spread the Word On Social Media: Follow #M1GS, @OWSMayDay, @OccupyWallSt, and @OccupyGenStrike on Twitter. Also be sure to RSVP on Facebook and follow facebook.com/OccupyGeneralStrike. You can also look for city-specific events, like these fromChicago and Detroit.

Start an Affinity Group: You can take action on your own. All you need are a few friends. Affinity groups are groups of people who know each other and come together autonomously for a particular action. Find a few people who are interested in helping you out on a project you have in mind - whether it's making fliers and literature to distribute, or shutting down a Wall Street bank in your hometown. Get creative, and get to work! (Here's a hint: OccuPrint collects, prints, and distributes posters from the worldwide Occupy movement, and they have a ton of amazing General Strike posters!)

Join the General Strike Conference Calls: InterOccupy hosts regular calls to organize May 1st activities. Check out their schedule and join in the conversation!

Talk to Labor: Due to federal laws, most unions are forbidden from organizing strikes for political reasons. However, unions and labor groups are still some of our strongest allies. During last year's General Strike in Oakland, many unions encouraged their workers to take the day off or attend demonstrations after work. Not long after Occupy Oakland shut down ports in solidarity with striking Longshoreman, their employers caved to the union's demands in a new contract. Get in touch with local unions and labor organizations, let them know about the plans for a General Strike, find out what they're working on and how you can help, and encourage them to let their members know about May 1st and get involved in organizing directly.

Organize Your Workplace, Campus, or Community: If you're a unionized worker, encourage your union to support the General Strike. Whether your workplace is union or not, you can encourage co-workers to take a sick day on May 1st. If you can't afford to lose out on pay, that's okay - there will be plenty of celebrations, marches, and direct actions throughout all hours of the day. Invite your community to attend. If you're a student at a high school or college, spread the word to walk-out of class on May 1st. If you're not a worker or student, organize your friends!

More info: [MayDayNYC.org] | [OccupyMay1st.org] | [StrikeEverywhere.net] | [NYCGA ]