Chicago Sneaks Free Newspaper-killing Law into Effect


Even though all the Founding Fathers pretended that they hated the media (which then meant newspapers and tract publishing) each of them had their very own newspaper supporters and nearly all paid for tracts that supported their viewpoints and policies to be published. These tracts and newspapers were usually subscription-supported, but sometimes they were freely distributed. Flash forward to today in Chicago. Today, thanks to a law ushered in the back door right under everyone's noses, it is illegal to distribute free newspapers. Were the Founders alive today, Richard Daley, King of Chicago, would prevent them from distributing their political papers to the public. No speech in King Daley's city... not without HIS say-so, anyway.

Of course, like all busy body, cradle-to-grave governments, the ordinance in question was ostensibly to do something "good" for us all. You see, Title 10, Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code was supposed to "help" us get rid of litter in this fair Windy City.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

But, tacked onto the law is a little section that bans the distribution of free publications. This ordinance made it unlawful to distribute free “newspapers, periodicals and directories of any kind on any public way or other public place or on the premise of private property in the city in such a manner that it is reasonably foreseeable that such distribution will cause litter.” Who needs free speech when we can get rid of "litter," eh?

So, which newspaper will King Daley consider to be "litter," one wonders? And, what if a resident takes delivery of one of these so-called pieces of "litter"? Would they be prosecuted? Are they a party to criminal distribution of "litter"? Of course, the Aldermen who voted 50 to nothing for this law are scrambling to answer critics of the ordinance. It seems fairly certain that not a one of them even read the thing before they voted, something that isn't unusual in this city.

They all claim, of course, that this ordinance would never be used to stop a community newspaper from being distributed. But just wait for the first incumbent Alderman who decides he doesn't like what a paper has to say about him during an election campaign! Just wait fir the first time King Daley doesn't like what some small paper has to say about his trucking schemes or other criminal enterprises.

Watch how quickly a newspaper becomes "litter" then. And don’t for a second imagine that no city Alderman would employ such a dirty trick. Chicago has a long, black history of electoral hyjinx. From stealing opponent’s political signs to even running candidates with the same name as an opponent in order to split up his vote, the Chicago city council have played just about every illicit game one can think of to get elected.

For their part, the aldermen are trying to claim that their law was only to apply to flyers and coupons, not political flyers or newspapers. But, is that any better? So, they are okay with political speech (which is good) but against capitalism? And, naturally, not one Chicago politician alerted the public to their little plan, nor consulted any citizens or business to ask their opinion. They just passed it without debate.

This is just one more example that the meddling fat-cats who run the city of Chicago feel little need to consult the people who put them in office, the businesses that pay their bills, or the community at large. So, don't try to emulate the Founding Fathers and try to distribute newspapers and periodicals in Chicago. Your efforts will just be deemed as "litter" and made illegal.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Appalling. Just to think

Appalling. Just to think that you can stop someone from giving something away, all in the name of litter. Whats next? Halloween? After all, those pesky kids running around at night, threating law abiding folks in their homes, and throwing all those candy wrapers around. Not to mention the vile acts with those poor defenseless trees. All that TP makes for a lot of litter.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Talk about missguided...

and illegal. This is a clear violation of the constitution. Can't spin it any other way. Even though we may not like these free rags arriving on our door step, they have the constitutional right to publish and should be able to distribute. And what about the free rags that you pick up at the news stand of your own accord? This puts them in a position of having to charge for the paper that may mean a financial paper killer for them. People may not want to pay for the paper, but would pick it up if it’s free. This just smells of corruption. I can see the Chicago Tribune or whatever it’s called bribing the politicians to put this law in the books for their benefit. It squashes any dissenting or differing view other than their own.

McCain-Feingold

Based on the McCain Feingold precedent, this law is constitution. The public good of preventing litter outweighs the possibility that the press may be restricted.

Wondering

We are assuming that the McCain-Feingold precedent is constitutional. Has anybody challenged it? Or does it skirt around the constitution with legal jargon etc. but violates the spirit of the constitution? I've never liked it.

Supreme Court

The pre-Roberts Supreme Court upheald the law. Under Roberts some provisions were found unconstitutional, but Roberts did not take the step of reversing the earlier decision, although he probably has the votes to do it now.

That first decision is  appaling. It allows for the statutory restriction of political speech. 

The say of the Supreme Court.

"They are not final because they are right. They are right because they are final"

More than one kind of trash

Yeah, like all the newspapers that cost money never end up in the streets or scattered on the subways and busses.  The paper trash from the free papers couldn't compare to the editorial trash of The NY Times and like publications. 

When this law fails in court.

The news media should (and we probably will take up the slack when they don't) report on the exact dollar-figure this failure cost taxpayers in terms of lawyers, etc. before the case was lost. Would that a percentage of this taxpayer-cost could come out of the salaries of those who voted for it, in spite of what I'm sure was a previous oath to uphold the Constitution, instead.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

As a Chicagoan...

Okay...I no longer live in Chicago...Thank God. I live happily in the Dallas metroplex, but for my fellow Chicagoans, fear not...

I am certain that the ACLU will be riding in on a white horse to save the day!!!

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

As an attorney myself, I

As an attorney myself, I know that with a minimal amount of effort any decent attorney could get this bogus law overturned.  My goodness!!!  What are they thinking in Chicago!  Guess we can call that the "Red" city.

IANAL, but as you can see I absolutely-agree

When this happens, how easy/hard will it be for Chicago taxpayers to determine what fighting what I agree would be a minimal effort cost them? At this point, because the legislation exists, IMO the attack on this crappy idea must be on its inherent fiscal irresponsibility. After all, the Constitutionality question is both glaringly-obvious to most nonpoliticians and (sadly) "boring" to many people these days.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Sweeping violation of the First Amendment

Besides political speech, this should also impact a lot of neighborhood shopper publications, apartment directories, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses' "Watchtower" magazine.  Any judge with an ounce of sanity should bounce this ordinance out on its ear.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

I wonder if Chicago is going

I wonder if Chicago is going to bust the USPS for distributing what usually does end up being litter.

Clearly against the Bill of

Clearly against the Bill of Rights. Freedom of the press is a right reserved to INDIVIDUALS. The government cannot infringe on this right. Just because today we think of freedom of the press as something reserved for the likes of liars like Dan Rather, that is simply not true.

This should be challenged.

WhatAMaroon