Welcome! Login | Register
 

Worcester Police Officer and Local Boy Drown in Accident, and in Braintree 2 Police Shot, K-9 Killed—Worcester Police Officer and Local Boy Drown in…

Person of Interest Named in Molly Bish Case By Worcester County DA—Person of Interest Named in Molly Bish Case…

Bravehearts Escape Nashua With a Win, 9th Inning Controversy—Bravehearts Escape Nashua With a Win, 9th Inning…

Worcester Regional Research Bureau Announces Recipients of 2021 Awards—Worcester Regional Research Bureau Announces Recipients of 2021…

16 Year Old Shot, Worcester Police Detectives Investigating Shooting at Crompton Park—16 Year Old Shot, Worcester Police Detectives Investigating…

Feds Charge Former MA Pizzeria Owner With PPP Fraud - Allegedly Used Loan to Purchase Alpaca Farm—Feds Charge Former MA Pizzeria Owner With PPP…

Facebook’s independent Oversight Board on Wednesday announced it has ruled in favor of upholding the—Trump's Facebook Suspension Upheld

Patriots’ Kraft Buys Hamptons Beach House for $43 Million, According to Reports—Patriots’ Kraft Buys Hamptons Beach House for $43…

Clark Alum Donates $6M to Support Arts and Music Initiatives—Clark Alum Donates $6M to Support Arts and…

CVS & Walgreens Have Wasted Nearly 130,000 Vaccine Doses, According to Report—CVS & Walgreens Have Wasted Nearly 130,000 Vaccine…

 
 

Federal Judge Strikes Down 2 Worcester Anti-Panhandling Ordinances

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

 

A federal judge overruled a pair of city anti-panhandling ordinances, saying that the laws are unconstitutional after considering a recent Supreme Court decision and decisions overruling similar laws in Lowell and Maine.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman struck down Ordinance 9-16 which made it “unlawful for any person to beg, panhandle or solicit any other person in an aggressive manner,” and Ordinance 13-77 which prohibits “walking or standing on any traffic island or upon the roadway of any street or highway” except to cross the street or enter or exit a vehicle. 

As GoLocal reported, the ordinances were adopted in January of 2013 as part of an effort to control aggressive panhandling.

Hillman previously upheld the laws, but said recent decisions by courts in Lowell and Portland, Maine changed his thinking.

“Suffice to say that for the same reasons adopted by those courts, I find that the entirety of Ordinance 9-16 (against aggressive panhandling) fails because it is not the least restrictive means available to protect the public and therefore does not satisfy strict scrutiny,” Hillman wrote in his opinion. “The city can point to specific medians and traffic islands as to which a pedestrian use should be prohibited in the interest of public safety ... however, on this record, it has not established the need for the ‘sweeping ban.' " 

Matthew R. Segal, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts who represented the plaintiffs who sued the City of Worcester over the two ordinances, said that the victory was “enormously important.”

“It’s the right to free speech by people who don’t have money; it’s really testing whether free speech is free,” Segal said. “They’re three pillars, three decisions really standing for the proposition that free speech stands for everyone. There are not two First Amendments, one for the rich and one for the poor.”

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

 

X

Stay Connected — Free
Daily Email