Insider noticed this article in the Spokesman Review on Friday.

In light of federal and state court decisions ruling that certain bans targeting panhandlers could constitute First Amendment infringements, Spokane Valley lawmakers are revisiting the city’s rules to avoid potential legal trouble. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code prohibits solicitation through entering or within a prohibited roadway, which include major arterials and entrances to state highways or federal interstates, barring panhandlers from reaching into the street. 

The newly drafted ordinance, however, removes references and definitions related to prohibiting solicitations, replacing them with language that forbids “interference with vehicular traffic” within these roadways. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2015 concerning sign regulations in an Arizona town helped set the basis for these changes. The case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, addressed regulations that sought to categorize signs displayed outdoors based on their content, with those categories determining the allowable locations and time limits for display. The court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment for imposing content-based restrictions in traditional public forums.

The case was referenced a year later in Washington Supreme Court in the City of Lakewood v. Robert Wills. The court found that an ordinance imposed by Lakewood prohibiting begging for “money or goods as charity” at freeway ramps and major intersections, according to court documents, was a content-based free speech restriction as defined by the Reed case.

Insiders Take:  When we talk about Reed V. Gilbert, the tendency is to think about it in terms of on-premise and off-premise signage.  Interesting to note the different interpretations of the law and its impact on free speech. I will be thinking a little differently when I am entering or exiting the freeway and see those all too familiar signs.

[wpforms id=”9787″]

Paid Advertisement