text: We don't get to define "free speech" by our preferences relating to the content.  Don't like nude dancing?  Don't go to the bars which feature it.  Don't like panhandling? Don't participate on either side of the transaction.  Don't like sermons which condemn same-sex marriage?  Don't go to those churches.  Don't like sermons which support same-sex marriage?  Don't go to those churches.  
  
  The ACLU often defends the "free speech" First Amendment Rights of some individuals you or I would consider really "creepy".  However, the organization is defending the Constitution and the individuals' rights to exercise those constitutionally protected freedoms.
  
  Springfield's City Council doesn't like panhandling and, therefore, has taken action to circumvent the Constitutional First Amendment protections provided to panhandlers.  There's no queston about the intent.  The question is "will Springfield get by with the action"  when it's challenged as Unconstitutional?