In the squeaky-clean fantasy world of Mickey Mouse and Cinderella, the homeless are an unwelcome reminder of reality. So reviled are the homeless in Orlando—it is considered the third meanest city for the homeless in the country and it has been ranked number one for the last four years as the city that is the most violent toward the homeless—that Orlando has now decided that requiring "beggar badges" and turning a blind eye to violent attacks (Last year, a homeless woman in Pompano Beach was raped and nearly strangled. Earlier in the year, two homeless men in West Palm Beach were shot and killed and a Fort Lauderdale man was accused of harassing the homeless with a chainsaw) is not enough to dehumanize the homeless, now we also need to starve them. At least if they happen to be eating around people that have homes.
This past Wednesday, a federal appeals-court overruled a lower court ruling that said the city could not prevent groups from feeding the homeless in the city parks. The court ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment under Florida law. This overturns the 2008 ruling wherein a federal judge had ruled in favor of the homeless and their advocates in a decision that claimed that the law violated the homeless advocates constitutional right to free speech.
Orlando Food Not Bombs, a plaintiff in the case, had asserted that its meals expressed an explicit message to observers that society had to take care of and feed its homeless. But the court's decision on Wednesday found that the feedings were not expressive enough to constitute a perceptible free-speech claim. Per the First Amendment Center, the court held that "a party asserting a free-speech claim based on expressive conduct must establish (1) the intent to convey a particularized message and (2) that a reasonable observer would understand the message."
Additionally, the court wrote, “We accept that Orlando Food Not Bombs had the requisite expressive intent, but we believe that the feedings in this case present at most an ambiguous situation to an objective reasonable observer,” the appeals court wrote. “Just feeding people in the park is conduct too ambiguous to allow us to conclude that a great likelihood exists that an objective reasonable observer would understand that the feeders are trying to convey a message.”
The court also denied the free-exercise claim brought forth by Orlando Food Not Bombs by stating that the law was neutral in that it applied to any general group, not just Orlando food Not Bombs, as such they were able to use a "rational basis" standard to review the law wherein the court decided that "the city’s interest in reducing overall wear and tear on its parks was rational." If that is the case why not require permits for those 25 people to be in the park walking around—oh wait you can't do that but you can stop us from feeding them. Why not create permits for everyone who just wants to come in the park if "wear and tear" is your "rational concern?"
Orlando Food Not Bombs is, of course, asking for a rehearing of the case, in the meantime the members vow to continue feeding the homeless...
Continue reading
Scott P @'Care2'
No comments:
Post a Comment