Page 11 of 14
Amendment freedoms – already provide protection for the public. In short, whatever problems
may exist, this Ordinance does nothing but move them around to be shared by other parks.
Rather than address the problem of homelessness in these downtown neighborhoods
directly, the City has instead decided to limit the expressive activity which attracts the homeless to
these neighborhoods. While the Ordinance may very well accomplish the goal of diminishing the
number of homeless in the Thornton Park and Lake Eola neighborhoods, the restriction clearly
prevents OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful
location which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech.
Although some incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms must be tolerated, the Court
concludes that the restriction here goes too far.
In sum, there is no evidence that the Ordinance furthers a substantial governmental interest.
Even assuming that the Ordinance did further a substantial governmental interest, the restrictions
placed on First Amendment freedoms are much greater than that which are essential. Accordingly,
the Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ right to free speech under the First Amendment.