When public officials say they need to restrict free speech to protect public safety, they often have other motives for their actions. The recently discarded idea to erect no-protest zones near BayWalk and Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg was sold as a way to protect pedestrians who might be forced into the road by protesters. The more likely motive had to do with shielding merchants and shoppers from potential nuisances. Now, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and the City Council are considering a ban on public solicitation and handbill distribution from streets and medians on most days. The reason, according to city officials, is to prevent accidents.
The facts don't support the claim that people who ask for charitable donations or sell newspapers from medians constitute a traffic hazard. A memorandum from Jacqueline Kovilaritch, assistant city attorney, states that "the city is not aware of an accident or traffic incident that has been directly caused by street vendors." But the memo then goes on to suggest that the city can act regardless.
As much as a safety measure, this is an attempt to sweep city intersections of homeless people who annoy some drivers. But the city can't use driver discomfort as an excuse, because that would be easily overridden by free speech considerations. Instead, the issue is cast as a vital matter of public safety even when the statistics suggest otherwise.
The ordinances under consideration by city officials would broadly restrict an important avenue for communication in today's mobile world. In most communities, there is no longer a true public square where the public congregates. Now, we tend to be in our cars when we are out in public. To cut off nearly all exchanges between pedestrians and drivers would unduly limit the ability of people to connect with one another, either to sell a newspaper or a to offer a handbill with a political idea.
A 1998 case striking down a similar Pinellas County ordinance said that street vendors, political activists and charitable solicitors who are not disruptive to the free flow of traffic have a constitutional right to engage people in automobiles.
Of course the Times has an economic as well as a principled interest in maintaining these rights. On Sundays, the company deploys independent carriers around the city to hawk the newspaper at key intersections. One alternative offered by Baker would allow street vendors on Sundays only, as long as they wear safety vests - as the Times corps already does. That would address this newspaper's narrow institutional concerns, but it doesn't address the broader constitutional issue. People's free-speech rights can't be curbed according to the day of the week.
Government has a legitimate interest in preventing any interference with moving traffic. Beyond that, though, it should not be regulating the movements of people on public streets and medians. There is no demonstrable increase in accident danger when firefighters take to the medians to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association in their annual "Fill the Boot" drives. And an ordinance that would close down such activities would do more than limit free speech; it would lessen our community.
