LearnHub

Minority groups and groups with limited financial resources are the people that rely most on access to street marches and when I say minority groups I don’t specifically mean just racial minority groups. Other groups that find themselves in the minority of popular or accepted society such as Gay and Lesbian, labor, Aids support and atheist groups. Groups with limited financial resources find street access essential because street marches is one of the cheapest and most affective ways to bring attention to their organization and their organization’s concerns. In regards to who will benefit from the ordinance, all we have to do is identify who or what groups proposed the ordinance in the first place and why. Those who would support such an ordinance most certainly have other ways of bringing attention to their own needs and concerns and it can be safely assumed that their ways involve strong financial resources. Whether its through strong ties to influential people in city hall or strong campaign contributions and support for these same people, those will benefit from this ordinance don’t need and have probably never relied on street access in order to have their voices heard. This ordinance is similar to Jim Crow Laws because it seeks to silence and exclude. The ordinance, like Jim Crow seeks to create obstacles for minority groups that wish to participate in the governing process.

Mostly, the people who are going to benefit the most from having relatively free access to the streets for political purposes are going to be, ostensibly, ethnic minorities, advocates of low income populations, educators and others who do not have the means to mount a lengthy and expensive advertising campaign. Largely the city is the main benefactor out of the ordinance restricting free speech from a financial and logistical perspective. The ordinance is by and large, cost prohibitive; groups that may wish to use the streets as a venue for public political activism, can no longer do so. Because few and few groups will be using the streets the city will not have to pay to put up road blocks and free up police officers for other things.

I agree with Joe and Peter that minorities who are economically and monetarily challenged will reap the benefits of arranging street marches. These are citizens who are taking a non-violent and innocent approach to voicing a cause they believe in. People from all walks of life join in the demonstration because they are seeking to be heard. They will not be silenced and by the way it is our constitutional and god-given right. Street marches can be beneficial in getting their political point across, contributing hugely to the community coming together as one. It seems to me that City of San Antonio is definitely reaping the benefits from the ordinance that is currently in place; that’s a given. It is hard to fathom that the City needs to assess a fee for us the exercise our 1st amendment rights on public streets. These are law abiding citizens airing out their issues on the streets of S.A to initiate change for the better. It is as democratic as going to the polls to vote. It is sad that the City of S.A. is picking and choosing who they will and will not charge for these street marches. We the minorities are the ones who suffer the consequences of what is really the key here: DISCRIMINATION! I have always been under the impression that the streets marches are free, but they want to put a price on free speech. Talk about being a hypocritical. How can you pick and choose what to be heard on; that is agreement (with the city of S.A.) not protest. In my opinion, I feel street marches achieve their goal of changing policies and extremely important in our society. We should be able to address our beliefs so that highlighted topics are made available to the general public, so they can be aware of what is going on. This ordinance focuses on the racism/discrimination card; much like the Jim Crow laws did back in the days of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

In continuance with the above discussion, the Free Speech Coalition has a right to take their case to court. They are being treated unequally by the local government, which has been the case for minorities throughout history. For example, the rivalry between Fox Tech and Lanier high school football teams is fervent. The Chili Bowl, as it is called, is held every year here in San Antonio. Both schools organize a parade for the event, but Lanier gets charged a fee and Fox Tech does not. I belive Frederick Douglas summed it up the best:

“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money”. (Frederick Douglas)