Topless in Times Square a Legal View

The "problem"  of bare-breasted women soliciting tips in Times Square is just one part of a larger panorama which includes naked cowboys, action heroes and muppet characters saturating the pedestrian plazas established as oases in the traffic-congested "Cross-roads of the World". City officials are scratching their heads and wringing their hands over how to address this phenomena without invading the civil rights or constitutional protections of these self-professed performers.

The first issue to be determined is whether the presence and actions of these costumed accosters truly is a problem. After all, Times Square's appeal has always been its tawdry character which for decades has drawn, titillated and frightened tourists. On the other hand, local merchants claim that the aggressive nature or erotic appearance of these panhandlers deters visitors, particularly families with young children, and damages their business. It is for the City Council, after careful study and extensive public hearings, to determine the kind of neighborhood that best serves the City's overall interests.

Second, the criminal justice system is not the appropriate instrument for resolving this patently societal tension. Arresting and prosecuting the actors merely implicates knotty constitutional and legal issues premised primarily upon protection of freedom of speech and would require satisfying the high bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the City Council could conclude that commercial activity within the pedestrian plazas is inimical to their primary purpose of rest and reflection and adopt an ordinance which designates those areas as commerce-free zones. It would not be a stretch to find that posing with tourists for tips is a commercial endeavor and courts have regularly upheld limitations on the use of park space or solicitations on subways. An injunction could be sought in civil court barring persons from engaging in the proscribed conduct including presentation of so-called performance art.

The Romney Plan

 

So, now we have it. Romney’s plan to save the economy and restore America’s greatness. Every economic indicator shows, and most experts agree, that the major impediment to recovery and job creation is lack of consumer confidence. That lost confidence manifests itself in reduced spending which leads business owners to defer expansion and suppress production.

Romney’s solution; lower taxes on the wealthiest while ending the tax deductions that most benefit the middle-class, such as mortgage interest, local tax payments child care expenses, etc. The result, more money in the hands of the top 2%, whose expenditures least impact the economy and higher taxes and less spending money for the middle-class, whose purchasing power most influences the economy.

In furtherance of this strategy, Romney would slash the programs that enable poor Americans to have and spend money, thus drying up their contribution to the economy even as it puts their well-being at the mercy of private and religious charities.

Romney’s plan is to remove regulation and put Wall Street and the Big Banks back in the business of pursuing enormous gain by issuing exotic securities and taking huge gambles on transactions that have no economic justification and add nothing to the creation of goods or services.

Romney’s economic vision is that reduced government spending, on roads, bridges and infrastructure and on the maintenance of a social safety net, will somehow be offset by increased spending on armies and armaments. In his universe the deficit will not be increased by the revenue lost in giving tax reductions to the wealthiest, by lowering or ending taxes on capital gains and by excusing corporations from the payment of taxes. Instead, the deficit will be magically reduced by greater economic activity and by closing the “loop-holes” that most experts agree will serve only to increase the tax burden on the rapidly disappearing middle-class.

And American greatness around the world will be restored and enhanced by substituting threats for negotiations, bluster for reason and the restoration of cold-war tensions with Russia and China.

So let the oceans rise and the climate deteriorate. The important work is to return America to those days of yesteryear when government did not grant civil and voting rights ( only God and Nature did ), women’s rights and choices rested in the capable hands of mostly male legislatures, unions were weak or non-existent, robber barons ruled and every hand could hold a gun.

Gerald Harris

August 31, 2012

 

 

Let Them Eat Broccoli

 

 

It is hard to comprehend how jurists who are presumably learned and sophisticated, can subscribe to a line of argument that is so childish and simplistic.

The health care mandate is not about forcing people to eat broccoli or join a gym. Those are activities that may or may not affect health and, therefore, the cost of providing health care. Mandatory insurance doesn’t mean people will be healthier – it simply means that when they inevitably become ill, the burden of paying for their care will not be shifted to others.

The mandate is not “ creating commerce in order to regulate it “. The commerce being regulated is the health care system, an existing industry. That industry is impacted by the decisions made by individuals, to buy or not to buy health insurance. It is a given, and inevitable, that every person in this country will, at some point in their life, require medical assistance because people become ill, are injured and ultimately die. Our society will inevitably respond to those who are injured, ill or dying and attempt to cure illness, repair injury and save or prolong life. There is a cost for such intervention which will be paid by patients with adequate funds, or by insurers, or by Society at large ( in the case of those who have no insurance and are unable to pay for care ).

So, unlike abstention from broccoli, the failure to buy insurance will shift the burden of paying for medical care from the recipient to the provider or the taxpayer. Congress has determined there are at least 43 million uninsured, potential cost-shifters and it has the power to impose requirements that prevent such an unfair imbalance from destabilizing the interstate health care industry.

 

Gerald Harris

March 27, 2012