Robby Kopec
Oakland, California
 
 
A blow for free speech
Residents of St. Petersburg, Florida, struck a blow for free speech when they forced the city council to back off some proposed ordinances on street vending, demonstrating, and soliciting. On September 16, the city council held a public hearing on two ordinances. One would have banned street vending on “arterial” and “collector” streets. Another would have prohibited standing or stopping in the median for any purpose other than crossing the street.

City leaders who supported the proposals claimed this was a safety issue. Opponents pointed out that the city had no evidence of accidents caused by such solicitation and was infringing on free-speech rights of political candidates, charitable groups, small businesses, newspapers, and student fundraisers. Several speakers attributed the proposals to the efforts of businesses wanting to get homeless people soliciting for money and jobs as well as political protesters out of their areas.

Outside of city council members, no one in the packed chamber spoke in favor of the ordinances. While speaking at the hearing was to be limited to residents, Karl Butts, Socialist Workers candidate for U.S. Congress in the 15th Congressional District, a district that includes part of St. Petersburg, was allowed to speak. It seemed that preventing anyone who wanted to speak from doing so would have been met with opposition from the audience. Butts said that the proposals would curtail democratic rights.

By 1:30 a.m., the city council had heard from over 20 individuals and representatives of organizations, all opposing the measures. Not only were both proposals defeated, the city council also voted to opt out of a county ordinance regulating solicitation from motorists.

Cheryl Goertz
Tampa, Florida
 
 
Bush-Kerry debates
Upon reading and thinking about the October 19 Militant editorial titled “Support SWP ticket in 2004,” I must take issue with the second sentence. Describing the event featuring lead Democratic and Republican Party candidates as a “rehearsed show” I believe weakens the editorial.

What difference does it make if it was rehearsed or not? (Though by watching it, I would guess it was not). The main point to make there is that neither candidate offers a working-class perspective or brings to the table working-class solutions to the deepening economic crisis toilers are forced to endure daily.

The way the editorial begins calling the event staged also gives way to conspiracy-type ideas about politics.

Prepared or unprepared, from the hip or prewritten, the so-called debates were bound to be marked by the fact that both participants and both parties gear themselves toward solving the problems of the tiny billionaire class.

The point you make in the next sentence about the exclusion of the Socialist Workers campaign and other campaigns I believe is absolutely correct.

Brian Taylor
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

[The reader has a point about the “rehearsed show” designation—Editor.]

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home