Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's no surprise that the city of Brentwood has trotted out the ol "public safety" argument to put the kibosh on many men and women's ability to earn a living while trampling the most important right our forefathers could imagine, the Freedom of Speech and Press.
This public safety angle has been used previously to effectively end street feedings in the Nashville downtown area. It's a very common tactic for any group, organization or government to use when they are working to stifle a particular action or effort and there is little else they can stand on or point to as a rationale for why it should be stopped.
Some caveats related to the freedom of speech are certainly understandable, like crying "fire" in a crowded movie theater. But Freedom of the Press, although perhaps the most disliked right in the list by a large number of people, has enjoyed a certain "special" privilege that dates back to 1725. Our Forefathers were especially protective of this right because during the Revolutionary War, "they identified the free press as a major source of protecting their liberties."
The Contributor's battle with the wealthy city of Brentwood, TN may seem like a simple, perhaps even trivial issue to some. It's easy to buy into the argument put forth by the city that they are merely looking out for the safety of our vendors as they place themselves in dangerous conditions to earn their living. But in the entire time of the existence of The Contributor, not one single vendor has been injured "on the job" and with more than a million papers now sold, not one single accident has ever been recorded in the paper's 3 year history.
When compared with the safety records of other fields of work, The Contributor looks positively safe by comparison. In fact, Forbes said that,"In 2009, the most recent year for which we have statistics... 97 police officers and security guards died on the job, making for a roughly similar fatality rate of around 13 deaths per 100,000 workers.".
Frankly, the police who gave the tickets to vendors of The Contributor are far more likely to find themselves injured on the job, as are the construction workers (number ten on Forbe's list of Most Dangerous Jobs) who built the roads vendors step onto when someone in a car flags them down for a paper. In fact, there's more danger for delivery drivers who regularly zoom past the vendors (rated at 9). Interestingly enough however, it's perfectly legal for delivery drivers of newspapers to make their rounds every single morning of every single day of every single week of every single year. Hmmmm.
If Brentwood is truly concerned about the safety of their community members, they might also examine how to better protect the maintenance and sanitation workers for the city ( rated at 8 & 7). I suspect too that with the mansions that proliferate in this community, plenty of roofers (rated at 5) are in far more danger than any Contributor vendor on any given day.
I'll spare you all the continual hammering of my central point here and simply state that there is an inherent danger that comes from many lines of work. People risk their lives every day for paychecks all over the country. When compared to many other professions, being a Contributor vendor is an exceptionally safe way to earn a day's pay and if the city were truly concerned about safety in their community, they have bigger fish to fry than vendors of The Contributor.
So what is the underlying reason to remove vendors from the city of Brentwood? I'm just guessing here, but given the level of ignorance concerning homelessness in the general population of housed individuals in this country, it seems pretty obvious to me that Brentwood is endeavoring to protect the image of their fair city by keeping persons known to be homeless or formerly homeless from spending any time there and as a result, tarnishing that image.
To be sure, I appreciate a community that cares for its members and strives to maintain beauty and cleanliness within. But public communities must be able to embrace diversity and be culturally competent to tolerate not only the diversity of humanity but the ingenuity and entrepreneurial vibrancy of those who want something better for themselves in their lives.
Each vendor of The Contributor has chosen to do something about the situation they've found themselves in, whether this situation was created as direct result of their own behavior or whether they were the unfortunate victim of circumstances in an economy in the worst fiscal straights since the Great Depression. From its inception, The Contributor has been about providing opportunities to those who find the doors closed in most traditional occupational fields, while at the same time striving to raise awareness about the scourge of homelessness and its impact upon people, communities and the country.
That Brentwood prides itself on its concern for the welfare and safety of its community members is admirable. That they selectively have targeted a group of hard-working individuals diligently, politely and carefully carrying out their employment duties smacks of discrimination. That they are inhibiting the right of their citizenry to access the news in an unrestricted, convenient and expedient matter is unconscionable. The good people of Brentwood, TN are much better than this and they certainly deserve better from their city government, as well.
Let's hope that officials in Brentwood come to their senses sooner rather than later and embrace the opportunities The Contributor creates for those who otherwise have very few options left to make their own way, enjoy pride in their work, and become productive, tax-paying citizens of our nation. Isn't that what life in this great country is all about, anyway?
ACLU Legal Director Says City is Violating Contributor's Rights
RENTWOOD, Tenn.- There's new information on a legal fight between the city of Brentwood and the ACLU over a newspaper published by homeless people.
City leaders have proposed ordinance changes to allow the paper's sale on public sidewalks, but the ACLU says it's not enough.
The group filed suit after Brentwood authorities ticketed several Contributorvendors for selling their papers in Brentwood. The city cited a law that prohibits the sale of merchandise on Brentwood's sidewalks and streets, but the ACLU claimed it violated the First Amendment.
Now, city officials have proposed changes to the ordinance to allow sales on sidewalks. But under the proposals, The Contributor's sales people still couldn't step into the street to hand the paper to motorists.
The ACLU's legal director says for that reason, the city is still violating the newspaper's First Amendment rights.
***************************************************************************| Brentwood City Commission Agenda | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information | |||||
| Subject | |||||
| Ordinance 2011-09 - Amendments to Section 58-1 of the Municipal Code, in Regard to Use of the Public Right-of-Way for Activities Including Solicitation of Donations and Storage, Sale or Exhibition of Merchandise. | |||||
| Background | |||||
| The accompanying ordinance, if passed, will amend the Brentwood Municipal Code in regard to the use of the public right-of-way for solicitations of donations and storage, sale and exhibition of merchandise and materials. The ordinance amends existing section 58-1, which reads as follows: Sec. 58-1. Use for solicitations and displaying, selling, etc., goods and merchandise. Except as permitted by other portions of this Code, no person shall use or occupy any portion of any public street, alley, sidewalk or right-of-way for the purpose of storing, selling or exhibiting any goods, wares, merchandise or other materials. Earlier this year, several sellers of the Contributor, a newspaper that is sold in Nashville and surrounding areas by Nashville's homeless community, were cited for violating the above Municipal Code section. The Contributor vendors would typically stand on a sidewalk, median, or elsewhere along a public street, and then enter the roadway if a vehicle driver or passenger indicated their interest in buying a newspaper. Because of the City's concerns over the safety hazards that result when a solicitor interacts with occupants of a vehicle on an busy public street, the vendors were cited by the Brentwood Police Department, but only after officers had initially attempted to gain voluntary cooperation from the vendors. In City Court, the vendors were found guilty of violating the Municipal Code. The vendors appealed the ruling to Williamson County Court, but subsequently dropped their appeal. The City had advised the vendors' attorneys that amendments to Code section 58-1 would be proposed to address issues that would have presumably been raised during the appeal. Courts in America have deemed the sale of newspapers to be "protected speech" under the First Amendment. Since public sidewalks are a traditional "forum" for exercising rights to freedom of speech, a regulation that prohibits the sale of newspapers on the sidewalks is vulnerable to constitutional challenges. At the same time, since the government has an interest in protecting public health and safety, reasonable restrictions on the sale of newspapers are likely to be upheld if they serve that interest and leave sufficient alternative means or locations available. The proposed amendments to section 58-1 retain the existing general prohibition against using the public right-of-way (including public streets, medians, alleys or sidewalks) to sell, store or exhibit merchandise and materials. This prohibition is expanded to include the sale of services. However, an exemption is added for the sale or distribution of newspapers, magazines, periodicals, handbills, flyers and similar materials, as long as the activity is not conducted within the street itself and materials are not handed to vehicle occupants. Under this exemption, the sale of newspapers on public sidewalks would be protected. It should also be noted that the City does not regulate or restrict the sale of newspapers on private property, although newspaper vendors would need the property owner's permission. Section 58-1, in both its existing and proposed forms, deals with more than the sale of newspapers. The restrictions on use of the public right-of-way apply to any other type of merchandise or materials. In addition to dealing with the sale of merchandise and materials in the right-of-way, the proposed ordinance prohibits solicitation of donations from vehicle occupants. While there are other Municipal Code provisions that prohibit obstruction of streets, this new language more directly deals with persons who might otherwise stand at intersections and elsewhere within the street to ask for donations for various causes. The ordinance also prohibits the use of public right-of-way to alert vehicle occupants to any commercial activity by the use of signs or other devices. Again, existing Code provisions have been used to address this issue in the past, but the proposed language more specifically addresses advertising gimmicks such as "sign spinners" on sidewalks and elsewhere in the right-of-way who distract drivers from staying focused on safe driving. The proposed amendments would not apply to persons who have a legitimate reason for occupying and storing materials in the public right-of-way, such as emergency workers, public works employees, utility workers or franchisees such as Comcast. Nor would the ordinance apply to public streets that have been closed for festivals or other events and activities permitted by the City. It should be emphasized that the City has no interest in prohibiting the sale of newspapers, banning individuals from the city limits or ceasing contributions to worthy causes. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to prevent accidents and other safety hazards to motorists and pedestrians and to avoid interference with the safe and efficient flow of traffic on busy streets. Before the Contributor vendors dropped their appeal of the Municipal Code violation citations, the City had been notified that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would be representing them. Counsel representing the City advised the ACLU that the ordinance would be amended and that the City invited the ACLU’s input. Nonetheless, the ACLU has now filed a lawsuit against the City in federal court on behalf of the Contributor, alleging that the City's current ordinance violates the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. If the proposed amendments passed, staff anticipates that the court will find the lawsuit to be moot. If the ordinance passes on first reading at the July 11 Board of Commissioners meeting, second and final reading will be scheduled for July 25. Please contact the City Attorney if you have any questions. | |||||
| Staff Recommendation | |||||
| Staff recommends passage of the accompanying ordinance on first reading. | |||||
| Previous Commission Action | |||||
| Section 58-1 (originally section 12-101) was part of the original Brentwood Municipal Code that was adopted after the City incorporated in 1969. |
