
Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Ban Against Homeless Sleeping in Public Spaces - howard941
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/16/788435163/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-to-ticket-homeless-for-sleeping-in-public-spaces
======
dchest
Discussed yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21805464](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21805464)

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
Is there a way to word the title to make it clear that the Supreme Court has
left the ban dead? "Supreme court won't hear attempt to reinstate ban on
homeless sleeping in public spaces?"

~~~
Shish2k
The current title is a quadrouple-negative:

Supreme Court Won't (Negative) Hear Case (Which implies a desire to reverse
the status quo) on Ban (Negative) Against (Negative) Homeless Sleeping in
Public Spaces

I'd try and get that to zero negatives - perhaps "Supreme court continues
allowing homeless sleeping in public spaces"? (Though I'm sure there is some
legal nuance between "won't ban" and "allows"...)

~~~
basch
Ban Against is really one negative. "ban on sleeping" and "against sleeping"
meant the same thing as "ban against sleeping"

~~~
basch
and they are opposites. consider this comment retracted.

------
DailyHN
If you think ticketing homeless people will solve the homelessness problem,
then you are the reason homelessness is still a problem.

Articles like this make me sad.

Humanity can do better.

What's wrong with us?

~~~
RobertRoberts
> ...then you are the reason homelessness is still a problem...

That comes across as hyperbole. People commenting on the internet are not the
cause of persistent homelessness.

I lived on the streets for a while when I was a teen. My experience was almost
no one wanted to stay there forever. The only people that do are crazy or
totally given up on life.

Therefore you have two homeless problems:

1\. Crazy people or drug addicts that have no hope.

2\. People who are in financial hardships.

Almost all these stories are about #1, not #2. #2 is solved with many social
programs. #1 exists because the state can't house crazy people in asylums any
more.

Therefore, the homeless problem will never be solved for #1 again because our
society can't handle asylums.

People commenting on the internet are not the issue.

~~~
DailyHN
#1 is a problem that needs to be solved, yes. No, I don't think asylums are
the solution.

"Crazy people and drug addicts" can be rehabilitated.

At this point, the only people in problem #1 are those that simultaneously
have problem #2.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> "Crazy people and drug addicts" can be rehabilitated.

Not if they don't want to be rehabilitated.

Unless you are suggesting you don't give them a choice? That is an asylum.

So, crazy/drug addicts are an unsolvable problem without some kind of force.
Which isn't going to happen.

------
WilliamEdward
"Public encampments, now protected by the Constitution under the Ninth
Circuit's decision, have spawned crime and violence, incubated disease, and
created environmental hazards that threaten the lives and well-being both of
those living on the streets and the public at large."

And so their suggested solution is to just 'remove' homeless people instead
of, I don't know, helping them? Thankfully the Supreme Court did something
right for a change.

