Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Could Brighton's New Anti - Annoy law be used against OCers? Maybe not but this law is an opinion enforcement tool for police. Bold in article was done by me.
Link: http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20081219/NEWS01/81219006
Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton
BY JIM TOTTEN • DAILY PRESS & ARGUS • December 19, 2008
The Brighton City Council approved a more stringent code for public conduct, and those who violate the rules – including annoying someone else – could be ticketed and fined. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman previously was employed.One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”Another section states, “It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance but ended upvoting for it.Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.“I’m not sure what alarm or seriously annoy means,” Bohn said.Council member Jim Muzzin asked if he were to stand up and read “War and Peace,” during his five-minute limit at call to the public at numerous meetings, “would I be ticketed or fined?”Paul Burns, city attorney, responded no.Burns said City Council chambers are considered a “bastion of democracy” and the law provides a wide breath for free speech. Burns said there could be a situation where a ticket issued violates someone’s free speech, but he said his office would be reviewing these cases.City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made bypolice officers. However, Foster said the rules are aimed at those who interfere in public areas as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for annoyance’s sake.The amended ordinance takes effect 15 days from approval, which is Jan. 2, 2009.
Could Brighton's New Anti - Annoy law be used against OCers? Maybe not but this law is an opinion enforcement tool for police. Bold in article was done by me.
Link: http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20081219/NEWS01/81219006
Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton
BY JIM TOTTEN • DAILY PRESS & ARGUS • December 19, 2008
The Brighton City Council approved a more stringent code for public conduct, and those who violate the rules – including annoying someone else – could be ticketed and fined. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman previously was employed.One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”Another section states, “It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance but ended upvoting for it.Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.“I’m not sure what alarm or seriously annoy means,” Bohn said.Council member Jim Muzzin asked if he were to stand up and read “War and Peace,” during his five-minute limit at call to the public at numerous meetings, “would I be ticketed or fined?”Paul Burns, city attorney, responded no.Burns said City Council chambers are considered a “bastion of democracy” and the law provides a wide breath for free speech. Burns said there could be a situation where a ticket issued violates someone’s free speech, but he said his office would be reviewing these cases.City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made bypolice officers. However, Foster said the rules are aimed at those who interfere in public areas as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for annoyance’s sake.The amended ordinance takes effect 15 days from approval, which is Jan. 2, 2009.
