street beggers

[table1349]

Not quite that simple: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RegulatePanhandling.pdf

 

[unpopular]

Some of the smartest young people I know collect on average $400 a day in Chicago, Detroit, Texas, and Florida. Do the math. Things are not always as they appear.

Unlike many here, I have been homeless. I can tell you that this is a myth. A group of kids I spent some time around would literally panhandle all day. Like 15 of them. And the most they'd obtain was barely enough to cover one box of wine.

Furthermore, even if a homeless person could make $400/day, most would spend it all on drugs. Yes, that sounds stereotyping, but it's true. Addictive materials is the single most common pathway to chronic homelessness. This is actually a significant problem for those who "find" themselves homeless but do not have an addiction or severe mental illness as it becomes tremendously difficult to find services for this population.

But if you don't believe me, then maybe logic could set you straight. If panhandling were so lucrative to earn one a six figure salary don't you think more people would be doing it? Don't you think they'd earn enough to buy better clothes - or dental care? Or maybe that's just their "work clothes"? Please.... Everyone lies about their income, either through their actions or words. The homeless just don't have anything to show their exaggerated wealth.

But no. Even if so, you can't "do the math", because every penny is normally spent on drugs as soon as it comes in, and also it's likely that if these individuals can raise that kind of money they'll spend it all and party for a few days. There is also a highly communal culture among the homeless, so they will likely make connections by sharing drugs within their associated group, which further affects. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's a survival strategy.

 

[unpopular]

Not quite that simple: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RegulatePanhandling.pdf

Any opinion to the contrary is a unconstitutional convenience. The right of free speech and assembly is absolutely protected regardless if the government elects to skirt the rights of the most vulnerable.

This is the very definition of oppression.

 

[jcdeboever]

Ok... your an expert... I didn't want to go here. I was one of those kids. We all averaged the same per hour at the end of the day. Some worked harder than others. You have no idea what you are talking about. Granted, I respect your opinion as a person who may or may not be bothered by people like me. Bottom line is it is an avenue for revenue. Companies rely on it, why not actors who commerce on the street. I loved guys like you, you made it legislative for us to continue to ask for money with no questions asked.

 

[table1349]

Not quite that simple: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RegulatePanhandling.pdf

Any opinion to the contrary is a unconstitutional convenience. The right of free speech and assembly is absolutely protected regardless if the government elects to skirt the rights of the most vulnerable.

This is the very definition of oppression.

I will make sure to tell the Supreme Court that so they can correct their rulings.

Why don't you try that thought out. Go into a crowded theater and yell FIRE a few times.

 

[jcdeboever]

Not quite that simple: http://www.cjlf.org/publications/RegulatePanhandling.pdf

Any opinion to the contrary is a unconstitutional convenience. The right of free speech and assembly is absolutely protected regardless if the government elects to skirt the rights of the most vulnerable.

This is the very definition of oppression.

DUDE, relax.

 

[unpopular]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater violates the safety of others.

Panhandlers violates the comfort. It's not the same thing.

Yes, the government can regulate the use of public property, but they cannot regulate it in a way that violates the freedoms of the people.

There is no measurable difference in effect on others between simply asking people for change and handing out religious leaflets. The only difference is that one is acceptable speech while the other is not. And by definition that violates the first amendment.

 

[tirediron]

 

[unpopular]

I loved guys like you, you made it legislative for us to continue to ask for money with no questions asked.

You got that right! If someone is permitted to tell me I'm going to hell, you better believe I support the right to ask for money!

 

[table1349]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater violates the safety of others.

Panhandlers violates the comfort. It's not the same thing.

Yes, the government can regulate the use of public property, but they cannot regulate it in a way that violates the freedoms of the people.

There is no measurable difference in effect on others between simply asking people for change and handing out religious leaflets. The only difference is that one is acceptable speech while the other is not. And by definition that violates the first amendment.

You are funny..............

wrong, but funny!

 

[unpopular]

wrong, but funny!

Please. Tell me in what measurable way is the effect of simple panhandling on others different from proselytizing?

 

[jcdeboever]

I loved guys like you, you made it legislative for us to continue to ask for money with no questions asked.

You got that right! If someone is permitted to tell me I'm going to hell, you better believe I support the right to ask for money!

Oh my...

 

[table1349]

wrong, but funny!

Please. Tell me in what measurable way is the effect of simple panhandling on others different from proselytizing?

Per you..."You do not have a right to not be asked for spare change. Provided that a panhandler is not engaging in a threatening manner or some other manner that violates your rights, it must be permitted."

Now read what I linked too.

 

[jcdeboever]

I loved guys like you, you made it legislative for us to continue to ask for money with no questions asked.

You got that right! If someone is permitted to tell me I'm going to hell, you better believe I support the right to ask for money!

I just dressed poorly and stuck out my big gulp glass

 

[unpopular]

wrong, but funny!

Please. Tell me in what measurable way is the effect of simple panhandling on others different from proselytizing?

Per you..."You do not have a right to not be asked for spare change. Provided that a panhandler is not engaging in a threatening manner or some other manner that violates your rights, it must be permitted."

Now read what I linked too.

What, the whole thing? Maybe some other time. From the preface:

how to curb one especially annoying public nuisance—panhandling that is abusive, A Guide to Regulating Panhandling persistent, or threatening.

So clearly this guide is not intended for panhandling in general, but rather "aggressive panhandling". No, you can't threaten people, follow them around pestering them. Specifically, this guide is intended for "panhandling that is abusive".

This is why I was always careful to state "simple" panhandling.

The same would apply to any speech, political and religious alike. You have a right to free speech, provided that you aren't violating the rights of others. The only thing special about panhandlers is their specific social class.

And simply asking for money or holding a sign does not do this, and if somewhere in this guide they suggest that panhandling is inherently threatening that's the kind of "unconstitutional convenience" I am referring to.