Standing on a Street with a Sign

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

So would another method of job seeking, I should think.

OP, you obviously have internet access. Try Monster, Simply Hired, SnagAJob, HotJobs, the Florida state Job Bank, local newspaper sites, and similar.

---

Thanks for the advice, you are very kind

"Employers cut 533,000 jobs in Nov., most since 1974
WASHINGTON — Employers slashed jobs at the swiftest pace in 34 years in November, leading the unemployment rate to rise to 6.7% from 6.5% in October and the highest in 15 years, the government said Friday. Speaking after the report, President Bush used the word "recession" for the first time to describe the economy's state.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Just what Constitutional application is at play here then? Panhandling and loitering, when challenged, fall under the purview of the 1st AM, why not soliciting on a street corner for a job??

---

Not sure what I was thinking. I focused on your freedom of speech section and somehow forgot where the section I believe is applicable was located. (where is this freedom of expression you speak of). I see it as a freedom to assemble. Still a 1st amend arguement, just a different part.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Not sure what I was thinking. I focused on your freedom of speech section and somehow forgot where the section I believe is applicable was located. (where is this freedom of expression you speak of). I see it as a freedom to assemble. Still a 1st amend arguement, just a different part.

---

It would be freedom of speech. Speech is not limited to verbalizations.

Although the word "expression" is not mentioned in the 1st AM, speech also includes freedom of expression, such as what is in question, standing on a street corner with a sign asking for work.

The burning of the American Flag is a freedom of expression, under the purview of speech, and is constitutional.

As far back as 1969, in a case I am familiar with and have brought up before on the board, Tinker outlines freedom of expression.

Students were permitted to wear arm bands, this is expression of speech with no speech.

Held:

1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 393 U. S. 505-506.


3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 393 U. S. 507-514.


Page 393 U. S. 506


First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.





http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/503/case.html


Edit: Oh another good example of "expression" is standing in front of the White House/Capitol with a sign saying "Don't raise taxes", or whatever.

jk, here is the Flag burning case: When linked press the "control and letter F buttons" at the same time, it will bring up a search/find box, key in- expression- and you will see it is referenced many times.

In part:

The State's argument cannot depend here on the distinction between written or spoken words and nonverbal conduct. That distinction, we have shown, is of no moment where the nonverbal conduct is expressive, as it is here, and where the regulation of that conduct is related to expression, as it is here.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...1_0397_ZO.html

Of course, we're not necessarily discussing a free speech issue here - it's a guy with a sign asking for work. Depending on where he stands, or what he does, it may or may not be legal. Provided he does not obstruct the sidewalk, remains in a place he has a lawful right to be, does not interfere with traffic or pedestrians, he can likely stand and hold his sign.

And, also to note, that there are limits to "free speech", and the speech tends to have to be of some public or political interest to be protected.

I think this is being WAAY overthought here, folks.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I think this is being WAAY overthought here, folks.

- Carl

---

Ya, but you have been here long enough to know that is typical for me and BOR:o

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya, but you have been here long enough to know that is typical for me and BOR:o

---

I did not think we stretched anything out. Yes, I did initially read the Q wrong about standing IN the intersection, but the gravaman of the Q was, what was the legal basis of the act, as I ammended my answer, which is 1st AM applied, and you asked about "freedom of expression".


Free speech/symbolic speech/ freedom of expression.... all intertwined under the 1st. I think it was very helpful to the poster.