Although Tori Marlan has already replied to Tom Doody’s letter (March 8) criticizing the cause of homeless advocate Mark Weinberg, I am compelled to write. Mr. Doody, as a city dweller I am also familiar with the various tactics of panhandlers and beggars. I have encountered countless numbers of beggars whose methods have ranged from pitifully passive to nearly violent. I agree with you in that I would rather not have to deal with their requests to “spare some change.” I do not agree with you, however, in the belief that you have some so-called “inherent right” to limit the free speech of any citizen, homeless or otherwise. Speaking the words “help the homeless” or “please spare some change” should not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a criminal act. If a person–again, homeless or otherwise–speaks those words (or any others) and accompanies them with threat of force, then that’s a different story. If you decline a request to help, and the beggar sarcastically replies, “Thanks for the smile,” that is merely his expression of moral repugnance at what he believes to be your moral failure. That’s his right–and the right of any other U.S. citizen as guaranteed by our constitution. I believe it is this principle which got Mark Weinberg going in the first place. To not fight against the law in question is to silently suffer and accept the existence of a law which sets a precedent for the limitation of all our rights–and this includes your free-speech rights, Mr. Doody. Viewed under such clarity I do not think you could accurately call Mr. Weinberg’s efforts “myopic” in the least.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Chicago
