The Augusta Commission continues to search for a legal solution to the growing problem of homeless panhandling, holding workshops to discuss the issue; meanwhile, the Columbia County Board of Commissioners received an unsolicited review of its panhandling ordinance from the First Amendment Center at the UGA School of Law.
According to the five page letter from Samantha C. Hamilton and Clare Norins, of the Free Speech Center, Columbia County’s panhandling ordinance violates the First Amendment.
The letter contained citations of case law, but none of those cases cited were Georgia cases, and the lone Supreme Court case cited, Reed v. Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, dealt primarily with political speech using street signs, not panhandling per se.
Homelessness and panhandling are a relatively modern problem, according to the National Library of Medicine. The term “homeless” first appeared in the 1870s.
However, those people referred to as homeless were mainly migrants looking for work. The advent of the railroads provided free (if illegal) transportation, and people would ride the rails, soliciting odd jobs.
Poets of the time, such as Walt Whitman, romanticized the lifestyle as carefree and fun.
According to the Library of Medicine, drug addicts and the mentally ill were considered to be sick and unable to care for themselves and they were sent to asylums. In the Civil Rights Era, deinstitutionalization caused the national homeless population to surge.
Local First Amendment expert, attorney David Hudson, says that laws that prohibit panhandling are tricky in that they must be very specific in what is being banned.
“Pure speech with no adverse effects is protected, but if a panhandler is interfering with someone’s passage or being threatening, of course, that is not protected,” Hudson said.
According to Hudson, a broad panhandling law could make it illegal for The Salvation Army to solicit donations through its holiday Red Kettle program.
“The government must prove a distinct and immediate problem for the ordinance to pass scrutiny,” Hudson said.
That is the rationale that the First Amendment Center used in its letter to the Columbia County Board of Commissioners, citing that the Supreme Court in Reed v. Gilbert stated that the ordinance must “further a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that end.”
Columbia County Board of Commissioners Chairman Doug Duncan says that he believes the ordinance in place in Columbia County meets the requirements of the law.
According to Duncan, Columbia County’s ordinance does not form any type of panhandling task force or seek to jail people caught asking for money.
“This is a public safety issue. We can’t have people standing in the right-of-way or in the street, really for any reason. If a sheriff’s deputies spot such activity, they can tell the people to move on,” Duncan said.
As noted earlier, none of the case law provided by the First Amendment Center originated out of Georgia and the Supreme Court has never addressed panhandling as an issue of free speech. Duncan says that just because a federal court struck down an ordinance in one jurisdiction does not nullify all panhandling ordinances.
“No one has challenged our ordinance in court,” Duncan said.
The First Amendment Center did not return a call for comment.
Scott Hudson is the Senior Investigative Reporter and Editorial Page Editor for The Augusta Press. Reach him at scott@theaugustapress.com
