Opinion ID: 789142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Prohibition to Hobbs

Text: 150 We see no constitutional impediment to the application of the Executive Order's Prohibition to Hobbs. Notwithstanding his complaint's description of the contents of his messages as political and social-issue oriented, his performances are expressly directed toward children. Several photographs introduced at a hearing in the district court show Hobbs on the Playland boardwalk, seated in a chair with various equipment at his side and a sign reading, in part, A theater experience for 3 and 4 year olds. ( See Hearing Transcript, April 3, 2003, at 21, 37; Defendants' Exhibit 3.) In one of the pictures, Hobbs is performing and displaying balloon sculptures. In his complaint, Hobbs alleges, inter alia, that [t]he balloon is a tool through which he conveys his message and helps attract his audience (Complaint at 13); that, although adults are repelled, his performance is particularly attractive to children, who try to help him understand how to inflate a balloon ( see id. at 12-15); that his performance is interactive ( id. at 8); that the balloon creates a tie between [himself and] those watching him ( id. at 13); and that he hands balloons to children ( see id. ). Further, the complaint indicates that the desire of the children to congregate around Hobbs is long-lasting, as, after seeing Hobbs's act once, they repeatedly ask when they can go to see Hobbs again. ( See id. at 14-15.) It is undisputed that Hobbs had twice been convicted of child molestation offenses, and his own descriptions of his act compel the conclusion that his act, using props, would entice children to congregate around him. 151 Finally, we reject Hobbs's contention that the Prohibition should be invalidated on the ground that it lacks efficacy (Hobbs brief on appeal at 31) because it does not bar his presence at Playland or any other County park. His presence indeed is not barred, nor is the mere expression of his views. See, e.g., Hobbs II, 2003 WL 21919882, at  ([E]ven a convicted pedophile is free to go to Playland Park, or any other Westchester County park, to distribute leaflets or speak publicly regarding matters of personal or public concern, provided his activities and speech are oriented toward adults and are not of a nature that would be likely to `entice a child to congregate around' him.). But Hobbs and other persons convicted of sexual offenses against minors need not be banned from public property entirely in order for the Prohibition to achieve at least some of the desired effect. The efficacy of the Prohibition lies in its limitation on Hobbs's ability to entice children to come near him through the use of equipment such as the balloons he seeks to hand them — accoutrements seemingly necessary to enhance the attraction, given that the contents of the messages Hobbs alleges he delivers ( e.g., tolerance, the plight of the homeless, government inefficiency) seem unlikely to hold the attention of a child. The governmental goal of limiting opportunities for child molestation by one previously convicted of a sexual offense against a minor would be achieved less effectively absent the Prohibition. Hobbs's efficacy challenge is thus meritless and instead simply confirms that there are other means by which Hobbs can deliver his messages. 152 We conclude that the Executive Order is content-neutral, aimed only at promoting the safety and well-being of children; it imposes a reasonable limitation on the manner of expression, without reference to content; and it is narrowly tailored to, and does, address the concededly compelling governmental interest. As applied to Hobbs, it does not violate the First Amendment.