• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Bad News for Vegas?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes

DaytonBuck

I've always liked them
Las Vegas responds to federal court ruling with new leaflet law


[SIZE=-2]ASSOCIATED PRESS[/SIZE]
LAS VEGAS (AP) - City officials have responded to a federal appeals court ruling by passing a new law aimed at curbing peddling, panhandling and pamphleteers at a downtown casino pedestrian mall.
City officials said two ordinances passed Wednesday restricting behavior at the Fremont Street Experience were tailored to comply with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last month declaring a similar city law from 1997 unconstitutional.
A top American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada official said the city was just inviting a new lawsuit.
"The new ordinance is as unconstitutional as the old ordinance," said Gary Peck, ACLU executive director in Las Vegas. He characterized the city position as: "Free speech is bad for business, and because it's bad for business, we're going to outlaw it."
City Attorney Brad Jerbic insisted that the new ordinances addressed the constitutionality issues the appeals court cited Oct. 20 in San Francisco.
The ordinances were fast-tracked due to fears that panhandlers and hawkers passing out hand bills depicting scantily clad women for hire might drive tourists away from the canopied walkway where traffic is prohibited and free light shows are shown on the hour.
The new law uses the word "immediately" to define solicitation - prohibiting people from asking, begging, soliciting or pleading "for the purpose of immediately obtaining money, charity, business or patronage."
Jerbic said that would allow nonprofit groups to pass out fliers in a place that courts have ruled is a public walkway.
"I'm a great believer in freedom of speech, freedom of expression," said Mayor Oscar Goodman, who said he hears too many complaints about people pushing cards toward tourists bearing photos of women available for in-room services. "I also believe in people's right to be left alone."
Peck noted the appeals court ruling stemmed from a complaint by the Unitarian Church, the Shundahai Network and the ACLU, not by those Goodman characterizes as smut peddlers.
Click to expand...


Link


So is this the death of them on the strip too?
 
Taosman;668514; said:
I have always found the panhandlers too aggressive!
Take them off the streets!
Click to expand...

I agree...I call them paper smackers. I love it when they smack the flyer around a little before they try to hand it to you. I think it is a waste of money. I mean who goes to Vegas and learns there is porn and hookers available on call from the cheesy flyer they get on the street.
 
Upvote 0
Oscar said:
"I'm a great believer in freedom of speech, freedom of expression," said Mayor Oscar Goodman, who said he hears too many complaints about people pushing cards toward tourists bearing photos of women available for in-room services. "I also believe in people's right to be left alone."
Click to expand...

I wonder what the good Mayor would assert is the basis for this "right to be left alone," when one is discussing a public walkway. Seems more like he should be suggesting that they create a public nuisance, and therefore some measure of harm, and should be restricted that way. Or perhaps that they're literally conducting unlicensed business on public property and should be limited to their own place of business (which, of course, would defeat the entire point.) All seems somewhat flimsy to me. If barkers and people handing out cards is just a direct extension of advertisement, and that this is somehow a violation of some implied right of pedestrian traffic, then how wouldn't billboards or raucous music and laughter pouring out of a bar or club be the same? I understand that the former is more direct and annoying than the latter, but I don't really understand where either is an infringement on anyone's rights. You do, of course, have the right to refuse the cards. Or to take them and turn around and throw them out. Or take them and avail yourself of their offerings which may, or may not, result in an intense itching and burning sensation later.

It seems to me that a reasonable person isn't going to go strolling around the strip in Vegas expecting a serene nature walk where they can collect their thoughts and get back to the roots of their individual self. In fact, forget the strip, and extend that to the city.

I suppose I'm arguing that the Mayors purpose may be valid, but the vehicle he's using to arrive upon it isn't. Maybe? I'm not sure. It's just that his comment about the right to be left alone, even if not meant to be taken literally, seemed an odd one.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top