Who is William B. Young Jr?

The Metropolitan Transit allowance and the Transit dominance started a rule-making process in January 1989. at that place was then an existing rule that stated that no star could "solicit alms, subscription or contribution for any purpose" on the underpass (Young v. New York Transit Authority (903 F. 2d 146 [2nd Cir. 1990])). The advanced prescript amended this rule by adding that the use of the subway system for certain non-commercial activities much(prenominal) as public discourse; distribution of written materials; collection for charitable, religious, or political causes; and tasteful performances accepting donations were permitted. However, certain restrictions were to be imposed, such as that solicitation was prohibited on subway cars, in areas not broadly open to the public, within 25 feet of a token booth, within 50 feet of the entrance to an authority office or tower, or in any area that would interfere with access onto or off an escalator, stairway, or elevator.

When this amendment went into effect in October 1989, the Transit Authority started Operation Enforcement, a program intended to implement the long-standing hindrance on begging and panhandling in the subway in a more effective way. The first step was the distribution of round 1.5 million pamphlets detailing the

monkey v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393

The regularise court considered these issues and granted the injunction. The court found that a bestow ban on begging and panhandling did not serve a narrow state interest and that the rules should have been designed to comprise reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The court also found that in that respect were serious unbeliefs as to the constitutionality of such a ban in terms of it being an infringement of free speech. The appeals court took this up and considered the claim by the plaintiffs that begging is speech.

The issue is a question of whether this particular conduct constitutes speech for the purposes of the Constitution. The plaintiffs stated that whenever a dispossessed or needy person is extending his hand, he is communicating. The appeals court questioned this:

development the O'Brien standard (391 U.S. at 377, 88 S.Ct. at 1679), the court considered whether there was a governmental interest at stake. Government regulation can abridge free speech when there is such a governmental interest. The court could find no testify that the district court had ever inquired as to the appropriate train of judicial scrutiny to determine governmental interests and had instead manifestly presumed that the conduct at issue deserved full prototypal Amendment protection. The appeals court found that the government interests in prohibiting begging in the subway could be indicated by juxtaposing the harms to be avoided with the good to be sustained. The views of the many riders of the subway showed that the regulation did advance substantial governmental interests.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.