•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

825

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Astonishing as it may seem, if Benjamin Franklin were alive today, and he sought to collect alms for the poor on Fort Lauderdale Beach, he would, by force of law, find himself summarily expelled from the area. If Mr. Franklin then returned, seeking thus to heed the call of his conscience to help the downtrodden and oppressed, the great statesman and Founding Father of the United States would find himself placed under arrest. For the City of Fort Lauderdale, with the imprimatur of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, has deemed it Right and Good that soliciting a passerby for alms in the only effectively populous area of the City shall be a criminal offense. In the promulgation of its Rules and Regulations, the City of Fort Lauderdale determined that the presence of beggars in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area constitutes an unsafe, aesthetically-offensive nuisance. Through summary judgment by the district court, and affirmation by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the City has secured judicial sanction in prohibiting those souls already reduced to a state of utter destitution from seeking to sustain themselves in the only area of the City where a reliable source of alms might be had. As if the financial, domestic and emotional desperation of the hungry and homeless was not bad enough, the City of Fort Lauderdale, with the support of the courts, has succeeded in reducing their condition even more by denying them their fundamental right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now, not only may a pauper in this most prosperous city lack money, a home, a family, and something to eat, he also lacks the freedom to humbly ask his fellow man or woman in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area for a helping hand. Finding in favor of the City, the district court based its judgment squarely on the Supreme Court ruling that "[e]ven in a public forum, the government may 'enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which [1] are content neutral, [2] are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and [3] leave open ample alternate channels of communication." Yet close analysis of the issues in question, including the reasoning of the district and appellate courts, demonstrates that the City's regulation is, if the truth be spoken, not content-neutral, but rather content-based, thus comprehensively disqualifying the validity of the courts' respective rulings. In upholding the district court's decision, the Eleventh Circuit thus ruled that the speech Benjamin Franklin equated with "the Voice of God" is unworthy of the First Amendment protection guaranteed to political and social speech. By refusing certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States indicated its indifference, if not tacit approval of the appellate court's disposition of the matter. This article discusses the many ways that the City's regulation lacks content-neutrality.

Download

Share

COinS