To the Editor:

I have several concerns regarding the Columbus City Ordinance banning solicitation and the distribution of material or information in the streets. The ordinance has come to be known as the “Fred Allman Ordinance”, and while “The Old Prophet’s” violations have been the most visible challenge, I don’t write to endorse or criticize his methods or message. This isn’t about him. It’s about the ordinance itself.

First of all, the ordinance is not consistently enforced. The wording of the ordinance is general enough to make almost any form of communication in the street illegal. In it’s words, it “prohibits pedestrians from soliciting and/or distributing materials or information of any type or nature while standing or otherwise being within the public streets, alleys and/or roadways and in the public rights-of-way contiguous to said public streets, alleys and/or roadways, excluding sidewalks.” What form of communication WOULDN’T be covered by “information of any type or nature”? Yet, the police haven’t cracked down on pedestrians wearing IU sweatshirts or seedcorn hats, in spite of the fact that these articles of clothing distribute information. Pedestrians haven’t been fined for wearing political buttons, or talking to others. Police continue to place tickets on automobiles (distributing material and information) when the vehicle’s are illegally parked in the street. Ironically, when the police cite someone for breaking this ordinance, they are themselves violating the ordinance if they issue that citation in or beside the street. The distribution of information continues just as before, except for one specific person’s violation of the law.

If we are going to have the law on the books, let’s at least enforce it fairly and across the board. So, if it’s illegal to distribute any kind of information while in the street or public rights-of-way (exempting sidewalks), let’s fine everyone who distributes any kind of information while in the street or public rights-of-way (exempting sidewalks).

Second, the matter is framed as a safety issue, but I have to wonder what is so dangerous about a person’s opinion? The ordinance does nothing to restrict a person’s ability to stand in the street. We can stand in the street all day if we want. But we can be fined if we practice our freedom of speech while standing there. This seems strange. I would think that the real danger isn’t in the information someone might distribute while standing in the street - the real danger is being there in the first place. So why is the information the only thing banned?

We are mistaken if we think that we must choose between safety and freedom of speech in the public streets. Many of the arguments regarding the city ordinance seem to assume that you have to sacrifice one for the other, but actually, there is no reason why we can’t have both. Freedom of speech is not the danger, and there is no real need to restrict it. In fact, sometimes distributing information in the streets can make the streets safer - as when I walk up to a motorist and say “your tire is going flat.”

Finally, it’s hard for me to understand how the City Ordinance is not in violation of the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, and also the Indiana State Constitution. The Indiana Constitution says:

“No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.” (Article 1 Section 9).

Maybe a creative lawyer or politician can find some reason why the Indiana Constitution doesn’t apply to a city ordinance that limits the distribution of “materials or information of any type or nature.” But it looks dubious to me. And why would anyone even want to come up with excuses to limit another’s free speech? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with protecting that right than figuring out ways to take it away from unpopular individuals?

If loitering in the streets is dangerous, I see no reason why a city shouldn’t pass an ordinance that says “You cannot loiter in the streets”. But I have serious reservations about an ordinance that says “When you’re loitering in the street, your freedom of speech ceases to exist.” If we must keep people off of the streets, we should do it without restricting the right to speak, write or print freely. When the Indiana Constitution says “No law shall be passed” that settles the issue for us.

Free speech has long been a sacred value to the American people. We have fought numerous wars to preserve and protect it. American heroes have given their lives to in defense of this freedom. Sometimes we still have to fight to protect it - even in our own cities and towns. Sometimes we must fight to protect it when the people being safeguarded are unpopular and irritating. Is it worth it? I think so. It is precisely this freedom that makes me proud to be an American citizen. Let’s not mess with it.

Rev. David Rockhill
Hope United Methodist Church
(812) 546-4135