On April 3, a U.S. District Court in Ohio refused to issue an injunction against a Public Housing regulation in Akron, Ohio, that bars anyone from going door-to-door in public housing towers. The petitioners are working on a petition to recall the mayor. Mendenhall v Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority, 5:09cv-00742. Thanks to Don Gallick for this news.
Could someone clarify what a public housing “tower” is?
I don’t think I have heard that language before.
Does that just mean public housing apartments?
If so, that is a serious, serious problem.
That would mean poor people get to participate less in government.
I see that as a huge lawsuit waiting to happen based on patterns of socio-economic, and perhaps some diversity discrimination.
Kimberly, I disagree and am pleased the court upheld the ban. That would keep ACORN from going door-to-door harassing people to sign petitions supporting Obama’s policies.
Yes, that’s spot-on reasoning: the ruling hurts a political group you dislike, therefore it is a good ruling.
If you think about it, if the government blocks people from petitioning in government supported housing, than whoever is in charge of the government can kind of own the heart, soul, and communicication line to any group of voters they offer public housing.
That is scary for all third party and independent politicos.
“Ladyhawkke Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Kimberly, I disagree and am pleased the court upheld the ban. That would keep ACORN from going door-to-door harassing people to sign petitions supporting Obama’s policies.”
If they can stop ACORN that means that they can stop any group that is petitioning or registering voters for a pro-liberty cause as well. This is not a good thing.
What kind of backwards ban is this? This is horrible.
#5 It sounds like Akron bans _anyone_ from going door to door in its housing facilities.
How would the housing authorities discriminate between commercial and non-commercial solicitors? How do maintain security when you have strangers wandering halls, randomly knocking on doors?
There is a big difference between people engaging in 1st amendment activities (gathering petition signatures, registering people to vote, giving out political information) and people selling products.
It is quilte foolish to give up an essential freedom (1st amendemnt activities) for the promise of making people safer.
A provision ought to be made to protect those engaging in 1st amendment activities and that’s all there is to it.
Actually, the right of people to sell products door to door has been established by the courts as well.
#8 What is the difference? You don’t like the content of the speech?
There shouldn’t be any Public Housing Towers, the “problem”, or court case, wouldn’t exist, and we would all be better off.
Public housing has a history of lasting about five years before it is in such disrepair that it has to be demolished.
I think this is really about the courts being incahoots with the Mayor. They all protect each other’s asses, not matter what it costs the voting public! The more power we give over to our government, the more rights listed in our Great Constitution are going to be taken away!! As usual, this is about power and money, both of which the government LOVES to have over all of us!
Just my two cents! (adjusted for the upcoming massive inflation, of course!) lol
Angela Williams
2009 At-Large Marion City Council Candidate of the LPO
Horrible ruling. It is one thing to oppose actual harassment. It is one thing to be worried about access to a prison or military base.
Yet, basically the court seems to imply that the First Amendment does not apply for a civilian context. That should give people pause.