An Annoying Ordinance
January 2nd, 2009
The City Council of Brighton, Michigan has adopted a series of city ordinance amendments that has a lot of people talking. Referred to by many as the “annoyance ordinance”, these revisions were originally intended to provide a tool for law enforcement in responding to harassment incidents, but because of the silly wording could pose serious constitutional challenges.
According to a memorandum issued by Police Chief Thomas Wightman, the amendments make it illegal to:
“…insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion any person in any public place.”
“…repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”
Sure sounds like an “annoyance ordinance” to me. Rather than admit their screw up, however, city officials have posted a disclaimer on their website denying the existence of any such ordinance. Attempting to justify the amendments, Chief Wightman cites the use of similar language in the ordinances of numerous other communities in Michigan. Birmingham, Dearborn Heights, Farmington Hills, Lansing, Milford, Northville, Oak Park, Rochester, Rochester Hills, Royal Oak and Wyandotte all have “annoying” laws on their books.
Gary Glenn, head of American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that such language could be detrimental to free religious expression. He explains:
“I think this ordinance in Brighton is clearly unconstitutional in that it attempts to restrict people’s exercise of their free-speech rights based on the content of their speech. That’s clearly viewpoint discrimination. If someone dared, in a public place in Brighton, expressed their sincere religious conviction — for example, that homosexual behavior is sinful — obviously if someone was offended or insulted or even ‘annoyed,’ as the ordinance says, they might try to bring charges against somebody for merely expressing their sincerely held Christian beliefs.”
Glenn is not alone in voicing concern. Some Brighton residents say the law violates their constitutional right to free speech. Others, like Claudia Kowalski, are snickering about it. “I wonder if the police can ticket my husband for leaving his socks all over everywhere?” she said.
Now I can’t say for sure if it’s really the intent of the Brighton City Council to limit the constitutional freedoms of its citizens. Something tells me that Mr. Glenn is being a tad alarmist. I guess that’s his job in engaging the cultural war. Personally I think Mrs. Kowalski has the right idea. Some things are just so ridiculous you just gotta laugh. What this ordinance needs is some examples of the “legitimate purposes” that constitute annoying behavior so that we can clear up any confusion. Here are some suggestions that come to mind:
Mimes
The sound of chewing
Driving slow in the passing lane
Pronouncing “nuclear” as “nuke-you-ler”
Using the word ”like” in every sentence
Toothpaste in the bottom of the sink
Wearing too much cologne
Pointlessly forwarded e-mail
Incessant texting
Telemarketers
Any more suggestions?