Panhandling: Difference between revisions
m (1 revision) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Date: [[:Category: | ====Date: [[:Category:1993|1993]]==== | ||
====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America | ====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America]]==== | ||
====Subject: [[:Category: | ====Subject: [[:Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion|Political/Economic/Social Opinion]]==== | ||
====Medium: [[:Category:Public Art|Public Art | ====Medium: [[:Category:Public Art|Public Art]]==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
'''Artist:''' People who panhandle | '''Artist:''' People who panhandle | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
'''Location:''' New York City | '''Location:''' New York City | ||
'''Description of Artwork:''' Begging and loitering in public places. | '''Description of Artwork:''' Begging and loitering in public places. | ||
'''The Incident:''' The city argued that begging has no expressive element, and that the city's interest in combating the intimidation, fraud, and urban decline in areas where panhandlers congregate outweighs their interest in conveying a message of indigence. It also said the loitering statute was a key tool in community policing. | '''The Incident:''' Begging on the streets of New York City "implicates expressive conduct or communicative activity" protected by the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled July 29, 1993. The court struck down a New York statute that criminalized loitering in a public place "for the purpose of begging."The city argued that begging has no expressive element, and that the city's interest in combating the intimidation, fraud, and urban decline in areas where panhandlers congregate outweighs their interest in conveying a message of indigence. It also said the loitering statute was a key tool in community policing. | ||
'''Results of Incident:''' Although the Second Circuit upheld a ban on begging in the city's subway system in 1990, it distinguished that case as involving a "limited" forum that left open alternative channels of communication above ground. The loitering statute, by contrast, applied to city sidewalks, traditional public forums in which content-based exclusions of speech must be narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest. Begging was decriminalized. | '''Results of Incident:''' Although the Second Circuit upheld a ban on begging in the city's subway system in 1990, it distinguished that case as involving a "limited" forum that left open alternative channels of communication above ground. The loitering statute, by contrast, applied to city sidewalks, traditional public forums in which content-based exclusions of speech must be narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest. Begging was decriminalized. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
'''Source:''' Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association | '''Source:''' Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:1993]] | ||
[[Category:]] | [[Category:1990s]] | ||
[[Category:]] | [[Category:20th century]] | ||
[[Category:North America]] | [[Category:North America]] | ||
[[Category:]] | [[Category:United States]] | ||
[[Category:]] | [[Category:New York]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:New York City]] | ||
[[Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion]] | |||
[[Category:]] | |||
[[Category:Public Art]] | [[Category:Public Art]] | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
Latest revision as of 21:58, 11 November 2016
Date: 1993
Region: North America
Subject: Political/Economic/Social Opinion
Medium: Public Art
Artist: People who panhandle
Confronting Bodies: New York City
Dates of Action: 1993
Location: New York City
Description of Artwork: Begging and loitering in public places.
The Incident: Begging on the streets of New York City "implicates expressive conduct or communicative activity" protected by the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled July 29, 1993. The court struck down a New York statute that criminalized loitering in a public place "for the purpose of begging."The city argued that begging has no expressive element, and that the city's interest in combating the intimidation, fraud, and urban decline in areas where panhandlers congregate outweighs their interest in conveying a message of indigence. It also said the loitering statute was a key tool in community policing.
Results of Incident: Although the Second Circuit upheld a ban on begging in the city's subway system in 1990, it distinguished that case as involving a "limited" forum that left open alternative channels of communication above ground. The loitering statute, by contrast, applied to city sidewalks, traditional public forums in which content-based exclusions of speech must be narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest. Begging was decriminalized.
Source: Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association
