Green River Ordinance

I was watching “The Andy Griffith Show”, season two, episode two, “Barney’s Replacement” (1961), where the new deputy arrests Barney for violating The Green River Ordinance. I had never heard of that law, so I decided to do some research to see if it was real or just made up for the episode.

The Green River Ordinance is a term that refers to various city ordinances or laws designed to regulate door-to-door solicitation or canvassing within a particular municipality. These ordinances typically require individuals or groups engaging in solicitation activities, such as selling goods or services, distributing flyers,

or advocating for a cause, to obtain a permit from the local government before conducting such activities. The purpose of these ordinances is often to protect residents from unwanted solicitation, maintain public safety, and preserve the tranquility of neighborhoods. The name “Green River Ordinance” is derived from a well-known case in the United States, where the town of Green River, Wyoming, passed an ordinance in the 1930s to regulate door-to-door salesmen.

This ordinance required solicitors to obtain a permit from the city and imposed certain restrictions on their activities, such as limiting the hours during which solicitation could take place and prohibiting solicitation on certain days, such as Sundays. The ordinance was challenged in court and ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 case of Martin v. Struthers, establishing the constitutionality of such regulations.

Since then, many other cities and municipalities across the United States have adopted similar ordinances to regulate door-to-door solicitation. These ordinances vary in their specific requirements and provisions but generally aim to balance the rights of individuals to engage in commercial or expressive activities with the interests of residents in maintaining privacy and security in their homes.

While the Green River Ordinance and similar regulations have been upheld by courts as constitutional exercises of local government authority, they have also been subject to criticism and legal challenges on the grounds of restricting freedom of speech or commerce. Advocates for free speech argue that such ordinances may unduly burden individuals or groups seeking to engage in grassroots organizing, political campaigning, or religious proselytizing. However, courts have generally held that reasonable time, place,

and manner restrictions on solicitation are permissible as long as they are content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.

In summary, the Green River Ordinance and similar regulations reflect the ongoing tension between individual rights and community interests in the context of door-to-door solicitation. While these ordinances seek to strike a balance between protecting residents from unwanted intrusion and preserving avenues for commercial and expressive activities, they remain subject to legal and constitutional scrutiny.