The constitutional right to beg

[aimeeandbeatles]

I saw this article in my Gmail bar and laughed

link

'Weed man' of Times Square sues for right to beg
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

The "Weed Man" of Times Square is going to court to claim what he says is his constitutional right to beg for pot money, the Daily News reports.

Among the signs that Joshua Long, 30, carries on his rounds in Manhattan: "Help! I need money for weed."

Long says in his suit filed in Manhattan federal court that he has been arrested at least six times, pepper-sprayed and harassed by police.

"He certainly has the right to stand on the sidewalk and ask for money," says Long's lawyer, Matthew Brinckerhoff, the News reports. "I can only conclude that the police don't like his message."

Article aside, do you think the guy has a case? Is this free speech? Is it free speech to beg for money to do something illegal? Thoughts.

 

[SerriaFox]

Giving money to some one to further illegal activity, is illegal.

The police show leave him alone and just watch, and arrest anyone who gives him money.

 

[LucyDuke]

There are laws against panhandling all over the place.

It looks like NYC's was overturned as unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/nyregion/10suit.html
Has it not been replaced?

 

[civver_764]

Giving money to some one to further illegal activity, is illegal.

Is it?

The police show leave him alone and just watch, and arrest anyone who gives him money.

I guess then people wouldn't have any illusions at how ridiculous the police are.

 

[JollyRoger]

I see no problem with this guy's sign.

 

[Tani Coyote]

He has the right to show the sign.

However, anybody giving him money should face charges for breaking the law.

It is a stupid law, yes, but the law nonetheless. Give cash to him at your own risk.

Though it really depends where you go; at Venice beach there was a homeless person whose sign said, "Why lie? I'm just going to buy pot."

 

[Ayn Rand]

Can I have a constitutional right to kick him in the face?

 

[LucyDuke]

Giving money to some one to further illegal activity, is illegal.

How's that?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Can I have a constitutional right to kick him in the face?

That would be assault. Two wrongs do not make a right is government policy(sans the death penalty ), so no, you do not have the right to do so.

Unless he tries to kick you in the face first of course, in which case you gain the right of self-defense.

 

[amadeus]

However, anybody giving him money should face charges for breaking the law.

Yeah! Only the government should be allowed to decide who gets marijuana.

 

[emzie]

I'd assume the sign was a joke, and I think police trying to demonstrate otherwise would have a hard time.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

I'd assume the sign was a joke, and I think police trying to demonstrate otherwise would have a hard time.

A blood test isn't difficult.

 

[emzie]

A blood test isn't difficult.

I'm not going to demand a blood test before giving money to a begger. I'm speaking from the prospective of deniability if a cop wanted to arrest me for facilitating a crime.

 

[JollyRoger]

A blood test isn't difficult.

Which is why you need to report to law enforcement on a weekly basis to be tested.

 

[GoodGame]

He has the right to show the sign.

However, anybody giving him money should face charges for breaking the law.

It is a stupid law, yes, but the law nonetheless. Give cash to him at your own risk.

Though it really depends where you go; at Venice beach there was a homeless person whose sign said, "Why lie? I'm just going to buy pot."

If I give money to a guy holding a sign, that is collusion? REALLY? I don't think so.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah! Only the government should be allowed to decide who gets marijuana.

You know I'm in favor of drug liberalisation, so... try again?

If I give money to a guy holding a sign, that is collusion? REALLY? I don't think so.

If the sign was "give me money so I can afford a gun to shoot someone with," that would be collusion, oh yes.

You are endorsing a criminal act with your finances. Those who fund an act are equally responsible for it as the one who carries it out. Similar in principle to how a Don rarely does anything illegal himself, barring tax evasion, but he's still responsible for all the murders, extortions, etc. of his crime family.

Should Burglars be able to start a "We Rob People, Inc." The IPO would be perfectly legal, right?

 

[Ayn Rand]

You know I'm in favor of drug liberalisation, so... try again?



If the sign was "give me money so I can afford a gun to shoot someone with," that would be collusion, oh yes.

You are endorsing a criminal act with your finances. Those who fund an act are equally responsible for it as the one who carries it out. Similar in principle to how a Don rarely does anything illegal himself, barring tax evasion, but he's still responsible for all the murders, extortions, etc. of his crime family.

Should Burglars be able to start a "We Rob People, Inc." The IPO would be perfectly legal, right?

Hmm.. good arguments. Does he have the constitutional right to freely express his need to commit a crime? And is that what he is doing here? Is an interesting point.

 

[JollyRoger]

Should Burglars be able to start a "We Rob People, Inc." The IPO would be perfectly legal, right?

It would infringe on the intellectual property of hedge fund managers.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm.. good arguments. Does he have the constitutional right to freely express his need to commit a crime?

Well, he theoretically could just be posting it for lols and gags. So, I'd say he's within his rights, kind of like that "Bong Hits for Jesus" individual.

It is, mostly harmless, the sign itself.

And is that what he is doing here? Is an interesting point.

Individuals who give him money are knowingly sponsoring any theoretical illegal activity, so they should be the ones arrested in particular. The other person's just holding a sign... a perfectly legal behavior in most instances.

 

[Hygro]

It would infringe on the intellectual property of hedge fund managers.

Hey you leave us out of this