The Bill of Rights Works Even If You’re Poor

Hanna Lebowitz, Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington, explores housing and homelessness through the lens of social justice and sustainability. She is one of the plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Dallas challenging its new median ruling.

She submitted this article Dallas Morning News in response to his January 3 revision in support of the ordinance, which threatens people standing in the middle of the road, namely beggars, with a $500 fine. The editorial argued that federal courts should reconsider rulings that panhandling is a constitutionally protected speech and “should strike a better balance between free speech and cities’ ability to address public health, safety, and quality of life issues.” News refused to publish the article as is, so she shared it with us.

Chained to a bench, with numbers written on their hands, dozens of men awaited charges for crimes they did not commit. Encouraged by relentless complaints from several locals about the presence of apparently vulnerable men in the city, Santa Ana, California police swept 64 apparently homeless men off the streets and took them to be randomly branded, bound and billed for crimes. . Some were told they littered, while others were fined for urinating in public places or crossing the street. There was little evidence that these men had actually committed these crimes, so they were issued general sentences for conduct they likely engaged in. As expected, a lawsuit followed. Less than six months later, the chairman spoke out decisively: people without housing should not be deprived of their rights and treated like second-class citizens.

The Santa Ana roundup took place in August 1990, but it could just as well have been Germany in the 1940s. As the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, I am grateful every day to live in a country where the Bill of Rights protects me from government interference and oppression. But homeless Dallas residents, many of whom grew up in the area, attended local schools, and worked in local businesses for several years, are denied these rights under the guise of “safety concerns.” I am very familiar with these kinds of concerns. These are the same ones that have led thousands of Europeans and even local Americans to believe that the people of my religious group need to be expelled and destroyed.

Presenting poor people asking for help as “threats” to public safety simply gives governments an excuse to violate their rights.

tweet it

That’s why, as a Jewish, American, Dallas homeowner and taxpayer, and homeless researcher, I, along with three other plaintiffs and the Texas Civil Rights Project, sued the city for its latest attempt to disenfranchise the poor.

Any attempt to limit the rights of any American under the First Amendment, without proof that such behavior represents a real threat to public safety, should be understood for what it really is: an attempt to marginalize and criminalize those whom society considers deviant, harmful and unworthy. And just like the harmful behavior of other states, at other times I again heard the same excuses.

“These people threaten public order.”

“These people are more prone to criminal behavior.”

“These people threaten our youth, our culture, our way of life.”

The reality, however, is that presenting poor people asking for help as a “threat” to public safety simply gives governments an excuse to violate their rights and push them to the margins. Suddenly, behavior that is not in the least problematic, such as standing quietly on the median with a sign, becomes deeply threatening, and our reaction to those engaging in such activities is to assume that they are criminals. But it’s not. They are just poor people asking kind strangers if they would like to help.

I believe that my fellow citizens of Dallas are kind-hearted people, deeply compassionate beings. Many Dallas residents likely agree that the city, along with its nonprofit and intergovernmental partners, needs to take a more proactive stance against the root causes of homelessness. And, judging by charitable giving trends, frequency of volunteering, and calls for donations in the city, there are thousands of people in Dallas who are more than willing to help those in need.

But, no matter what residents do to help their neighbors, it’s not the city — or vocal residents who feel uneasy at the sight of someone who is socially vulnerable — that should not determine who is and is not protected by the First Amendment. When we allow our city to violate the rights of its most vulnerable residents, we weaken the First Amendment for everyone. That’s why we must call on the city to end this cruel decree and invest in real solutions to the root causes of economic vulnerability and homelessness.