The folllowing comments are based on the latest version of the bill on the web–maybe a new version addresses these problems:
From the bill:
“No
local government may enact or enforce any ordinance that prohibits
engaging in the distribution of newspapers on the non‑traveled portion
of any street or highway except when those distribution activities
impede the normal movement of traffic on the street or highway.”
1)
Apparently, local governments can therefore prohibit the distribution
of magazines, newsletters, etc. What exactly is the government’s
interest to provide newspapers greater
first amendment protection than other forms of media such as magazines,
pamphlets, or
newsletters? The government favoring one form of media for no
reason seems a bit problematic to me.
2) If I were a homeless advocate this bill would anger me. The
existing law says “Local governments may enact ordinances restricting
or prohibiting a person from standing on any street, highway, or
right‑of‑way excluding sidewalks while soliciting, or attempting to
solicit, any employment, business, or contributions from the driver or
occupants of any vehicle. “
So it is ok for newspaper salespeople to bother people but not a
homeless person that may need money? What is the justification
for treating homeless people differerently? For that matter, what
about some guy handing out flyers for a pizza parlor? The
legislature is admitting, through this proposed change, that the
existing law has nothing to do with the safety of the solicitor but to
punish the speech of the solicitor. This may come back and haunt
them.
3) Safety issues anyone? Is it wise to have people walking or
standing on the shoulder of a road trying to sell
newspapers? I’m going to say no. Sidewalks are our
friends.
I could go on and on about this bill.
