Aggressive panhandling

Aggressive panhandling is a legal term that refers to unlawful forms of public begging.

Proponents of such legislation advocate placing limits on these activities. Some opponents lament what they perceive to be the "criminalization of homelessness" and argue that such laws are discriminatory and unevenly enforced.

In general, aggressive panhandling is a solicitation made in person for immediate donation of money or other gratuity. This may be done by vocal appeal (asking, requesting, coercing (badgering), sympathy appeals, harassment, threats, or demands) or by nonvocal appeal (usage of signs or other signals gestures, postures, children, animals, or props such as toys and musical instruments). It is a habitual manipulative, coercive, or intimidatory use of another individual's sympathy, fear, guilt, or insecurity for monetary gain. Also, it is a form of emotional and financial abuse.

Helen Hershkoff claims legal restrictions on panhandlers' activities are "unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and deprive the homeless of their right to free speech".

Conversely, Roger Conner asserts that "Aggressive begging is not common panhandling. It is uncommon panhandling, a type of harassment bordering on extortion that is practiced by a minority of street people."

The definition of aggressive panhandling is given by city and county ordinances as well as state statutes.

For example, according to the Bloomington, Indiana website, panhandling is "a growing social and public safety concern faced by cities of all sizes, including Bloomington. Many panhandlers passively ask for money or hold a sign. Others are much more aggressive, making noise, sometimes repeated demands and choose to solicit in places that are particularly intimidating such as near automated teller machines, in a restroom or near your car. This is considered aggressive panhandling and in Indiana it is against the law."

Constitutional lawyers, including but not limited to the American Civil Liberties Union, have secured a series of court decisions confirming their view that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects activities which some local ordinances have attempted to proscribe as illegal panhandling. In response, many jurisdictions have responded by narrowing the definition of illegal panhandling. The generally accepted terminology is to denominate such activity as aggressive panhandling.

...
Wikipedia