The freedom of movement is a constitutional right that allows every citizen to move freely in the country (Mau et. al., 2012). Essentially it enables the citizen to be anywhere so long as the citizen’s movement is not restricted by law, and such restrictions arise out of the actions of the citizen. Similarly, the movement may be restricted to restricted areas such as nuclear plants, power stations, private property, military bases among others.
It follows then that the ordinance may face a constitutional challenge for prohibiting or curtailing the freedom of movement. The ordinance curtails this right by limiting where a person can be. The ordinance also limits this right by restricting or controlling the movement of a citizen within the crosswalk. This is especially so given that a crosswalk is a public area, for which a citizen has a right to move freely.
Another constitutional challenge that may be raised against the ordinance is its restriction of the right to assemble peaceably or the freedom of association. This right is guaranteed under the First Amendment, and it allows a citizen to assemble or gather in public places. The assembling may be regarded as association; which right is also protected under the amendment. One of the fundamental rights this Amendment protects is the right to protest or picket.
The ordinance breaches this right by prohibiting standing or remaining in the crosswalk with a sign. It follows then that the restriction prohibits people from assembling in the crosswalk, and by extension protesting. Again this breach is evident from the fact that the crosswalk is a public place where citizens should ideally freely assemble to protest.
The ordinance may also face another constitutional challenge arising from the First Amendment; the freedom of speech. The right to free speech has been construed to mean more than just spoken word. The Supreme Court has ruled that some expressive conduct may fall within the expression of free speech, and, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. Indeed in United States v. Eichman the Supreme Court, considered the desecration of the flag as a form of expressive conduct protected under the ambit of free speech. Accordingly, it follows that any conduct that constitutes an expression of free speech is protected under the First Amendment.
The ordinance restricts this right by prohibiting standing or remaining in the crosswalk for a long period with a sign. Since this prohibition means that a person cannot hold a sign for an extended period, the same limits the expression of free speech through the sign. It can be argued that holding the sign is some form of expressive conduct; thus its prohibition or limitation is a breach of the freedom of speech.
The ordinance would serve certain government interests. Firstly, the safety of roads; this is because the sign might be distractive for drivers (Storm, 2012), and consequently cause accidents. Such distraction might occur when the driver attempts to read the sign or simply looking at the person holding a sign. Similarly, a sign might contain something considered as offensive to a particular driver, who would then confront the person holding a sign. This also could jeopardize the safety of road users. Secondly, the ordinance might improve security in the roadways. This is because it will do away with the criminals who stand on crosswalks preying on potential victims.
References
Mau, S., Brabandt, H., Laube, L., and Roos, C. (2012). Liberal States and the Freedom of
Movement: Selective Borders, Unequal Mobility. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Print.
Storm, L. (2012). Criminal Law. California: Hartnell College Press. Print.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
