Whenever the subject of panhandling comes up [“Change in the Air,” Aug. 27, City Weekly], someone starts spouting off about how panhandling is protected by “constitutional rights to free speech.” It is as predictable as night following day.
I’m afraid that I have bad news for the people who keep replaying this broken record: Freedom-of-speech laws do not give any person or group the right to harm another. When panhandlers reside in certain areas, people like myself begin making the choice to avoid these areas. I am not particularly small, frail or easy to intimidate; I am just sick and tired of having to say “no.”
I can easily see how a senior or petite person could be intimidated, and I feel for them. When we all choose to avoid an area, the shopkeepers involved lose real money, the state loses real taxes and any development of these areas becomes instantly pointless. This is measurable, tangible harm. And not protected by the Constitution.
Steve White
Salt Lake City
Speaking of City Weekly,
-
No Mankinis at Mystic Hot Springs
I’m a naturist but recently began wearing a two-sided thong that I made using a thick material to appease the prudish people who are present at hot springs.
- Sep 7, 2010
-
Vote for Your Favorite Restaurant
The 2010 Dining Guide wants you!
- Sep 6, 2010
-
Busy Roads Help Businesses
While I applaud the purpose of the Get Out article by Wina Sturgeon about driving in the Salt Lake valley, I would like you to consider another viewpoint.
- Jul 6, 2010
- More »
More by City Weekly Readers
-
Feedback from April 11 and Beyond
- Apr 17, 2024
-
Feedback from April 4 and Beyond
- Apr 10, 2024
-
Feedback from March 28 and Beyond
- Apr 3, 2024
- More »
Latest in Letters
