Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 <br />Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 14 <br />•Is the regulation not more extensive than necessary to serve those <br />interests? While court decisions indicate use of the least restrictive <br />means to achieve the government’s interest, the absolutely least severe <br />restriction possible is not required. <br />If the ordinance fails this four-part test, it is more likely a violation of the <br />merchant’s freedom of speech. <br />3.Non-commercial speech <br />Non-commercial speech occurs in many forms. Often, it is the exercise of <br />First Amendment rights by sharing religious or political information during <br />doorstep conversations or distributing door hangers, flyers, and other written <br />materials. Cities generally cannot require all religious, social, or political <br />solicitors to obtain a license or register when the primary purpose behind <br />their activities is to share a viewpoint. <br />Despite the ideological or constitutional differences between commercial <br />and non-commercial conduct, many homeowners don’t value or draw such <br />distinctions. A person who does not want to be disturbed by salespeople may <br />also find charitable canvassing a nuisance. Additionally, some “non- <br />commercial” speech is fraudulent or criminal in purpose. <br />Cities have difficulties when non-commercial solicitors are, to some degree, <br />also engaging in commercial activity (selling candy bars, raffle tickets, or <br />religious publications). In the past, local regulations and the courts have <br />examined specific conduct to determine if: <br />•The activity is primarily commercial in nature and subject to local <br />regulations on peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants. <br />•The sale is secondary to the expression of a belief or position and falls <br />within constitutional protections and outside certain local regulations. <br />77 A.L.R.2d 1216. <br />Vill. of Schaumburg v. <br />Citizens for a Better Env’t, <br />444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 <br />(1980). <br />Local regulations have been upheld when they apply only to transactions of <br />a commercial nature and distinguish, for example, the evangelist selling or <br />taking orders for materials that support or further his beliefs. From a <br />practical and conservative perspective, non-commercial advocacy is often <br />peppered with some level of commercial activity. Often, despite the <br />incidental commercial activities involved, the entire “speech” is generally <br />protected. <br />Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the <br />Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 108 S. <br />Ct. 2667 (1988). <br />Regulations that apply to non-commercial door-to-door solicitations must be <br />narrowly drafted to meet the legitimate interests of the city and not <br />significantly prohibit otherwise protected activities.