<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Youden</author><text>I agree with the sentiment but based on the text of the ruling, I can&amp;#x27;t agree with the ruling itself [0]. Missing from your summary is:&lt;p&gt;- &amp;quot;The applicant, Violeta-Sibianca Lăcătuş, is a Romanian national who was  born in 1992 and lives in Bistrita-Nasaud (Romania).&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;- &amp;quot;In 2011 Ms Lăcătuş, who was unable to find work, began asking for charity in Geneva.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Why was somebody who &amp;quot;lives in&amp;quot; Romania begging in Geneva? Would she not have received social benefits in Romania? This looks like a perverse kind of tourism. Refugees and asylum seekers I can understand but Romania isn&amp;#x27;t a warzone or dictatorship, it&amp;#x27;s an EU member state.&lt;p&gt;And I think &amp;quot;decriminalizes begging&amp;quot; is a bit hyperbolic. The court did set some precedent but they were also clear that a critical factor in the ruling was that this woman was in a situation where she genuinely needed to beg in order to survive.&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;hudoc.echr.coe.int&amp;#x2F;app&amp;#x2F;conversion&amp;#x2F;pdf&amp;#x2F;?library=ECHR&amp;amp;id=003-6910043-9279633&amp;amp;filename=Judgment%20Lacatus%20v.%20Switzerland%20-%20sanction%20imposed%20for%20begging%20on%20the%20public%20highway%20violated%20the%20Convention.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;hudoc.echr.coe.int&amp;#x2F;app&amp;#x2F;conversion&amp;#x2F;pdf&amp;#x2F;?library=ECHR&amp;amp;...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>nabla9</author><text>Related news:  European Court of Human Rights just made important ruling that decriminalizes begging. Making it criminal to be poor is against human rights.&lt;p&gt;-----&lt;p&gt;ECHR 021 (2021)&lt;p&gt;19.01.2021&lt;p&gt;(Judgment Lacatus v. Switzerland)&lt;p&gt;The penalty imposed on the applicant for begging in public breached the Convention&lt;p&gt;In today’s Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Lăcătuşv.  Switzerland  (application  no. 14065&amp;#x2F;15)  the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:&lt;p&gt;a   violation of Article 8   (right to respect for private and family life)of the European Convention on Human Rights.&lt;p&gt;The case concerned an order for the applicant to pay a   fine of 500 Swiss francs (CHF) (approximately 464 euros (EUR)) for begging in public in Geneva, and her detention in a   remand prison for five days for failure to pay the fine.&lt;p&gt;The Court observed that the applicant, who was illiterate and came from an extremely poor family, had no work and was not in receipt of social benefits. Begging constituted a means of survival for her. Being in a   clearly vulnerable situation, the applicant had had the right, inherent in human dignity, to be able to convey her plight and attempt to meet her basic needs by begging.&lt;p&gt;The Court considered that the penalty imposed on the applicant had not been proportionate either to the aim of combating organised crime or to the aim of protecting the rights of passers-by, residents and shopkeepers.&lt;p&gt;The  Court did  not subscribe to the Federal Court’s argument that less restrictive measures would not have achieved a   comparable result.In the Court’s view, the penalty imposed had infringed the applicant’s human dignity and impaired the very essence of  the  rights  protected  by Article 8 of the  Convention,  and the State had thus overstepped its margin of appreciation in the present case.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Finland has slashed homelessness; the rest of Europe is failing</title><url>https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/12/18/finland-has-slashed-homelessness-the-rest-of-europe-is-failing</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>usr1106</author><text>That sounds like a reasonable decision.&lt;p&gt;After all advertisement is nothing but begging to increase the profit of the advertiser. If I really need to buy something, I&amp;#x27;m sure I can do so without advertisement.&lt;p&gt;Advertisement, be it some marketing phone call, someone offering me whatever subscription on the corridor of the mall, and ads making my phone browsing experience super slow are a much bigger nuisance to me than beggars.&lt;p&gt;The amount of various form of soliticing might vary where you live. But forbidding everything that&amp;#x27;s a nuisance to someone won&amp;#x27;t be the solution.</text><parent_chain><item><author>nabla9</author><text>Related news:  European Court of Human Rights just made important ruling that decriminalizes begging. Making it criminal to be poor is against human rights.&lt;p&gt;-----&lt;p&gt;ECHR 021 (2021)&lt;p&gt;19.01.2021&lt;p&gt;(Judgment Lacatus v. Switzerland)&lt;p&gt;The penalty imposed on the applicant for begging in public breached the Convention&lt;p&gt;In today’s Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Lăcătuşv.  Switzerland  (application  no. 14065&amp;#x2F;15)  the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:&lt;p&gt;a   violation of Article 8   (right to respect for private and family life)of the European Convention on Human Rights.&lt;p&gt;The case concerned an order for the applicant to pay a   fine of 500 Swiss francs (CHF) (approximately 464 euros (EUR)) for begging in public in Geneva, and her detention in a   remand prison for five days for failure to pay the fine.&lt;p&gt;The Court observed that the applicant, who was illiterate and came from an extremely poor family, had no work and was not in receipt of social benefits. Begging constituted a means of survival for her. Being in a   clearly vulnerable situation, the applicant had had the right, inherent in human dignity, to be able to convey her plight and attempt to meet her basic needs by begging.&lt;p&gt;The Court considered that the penalty imposed on the applicant had not been proportionate either to the aim of combating organised crime or to the aim of protecting the rights of passers-by, residents and shopkeepers.&lt;p&gt;The  Court did  not subscribe to the Federal Court’s argument that less restrictive measures would not have achieved a   comparable result.In the Court’s view, the penalty imposed had infringed the applicant’s human dignity and impaired the very essence of  the  rights  protected  by Article 8 of the  Convention,  and the State had thus overstepped its margin of appreciation in the present case.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Finland has slashed homelessness; the rest of Europe is failing</title><url>https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/12/18/finland-has-slashed-homelessness-the-rest-of-europe-is-failing</url></story>