From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts
Gary Glenn, head of American Family Association of Michigan, disagrees. "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," he says. "That's clearly viewpoint discrimination."
Police Chief Wightman says the ordinance would apply more to verbal interactions than an upsetting or annoying T-shirt, for example. However, Glen believes it could have a negative effect on individuals and pro-family groups.
"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," he points out.
The town is ripe for a lawsuit, says Glenn, if officials try to enforce the new decree.
# Just A Mom Says:
ReplyDeleteDecember 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/18318880/detail.html#-
“Being Annoying Now Illegal In Brighton, Michigan.”
Justice could be a beautiful thing! Baby steps, people, baby steps.
..............
That was the comment I made in a neighborhood bloag at thestate.com upon reading the referenced article . We were discussing the frustration with people being allowed to fire guns in their own yards in Lexington County -- say, shooting at a varmint. Well, one man said he was shooting at a possum -- but he ended up hitting a school bus traveling on I-20. He hit the 'H' in SOUT*H* CAROLINA. Which lies right next to where a child could very easily have been sitting. No charges were ever filed against him.
.....
I thought this type of annoyance law would come in handy for "crimes" like that, that aren't treated as crimes, as well as the very difficult to prove stalking laws. I.E., if you are being gang stalked, it is very difficult to get to the source of the stalking -- the ring leader, if you will. But with annoyance laws, perhaps you could rope a few instances of being annoyed, pestered, followed, harassed, threatened while out in public -- and have a greater chance of nailing somebody for it.
:)
But I do see the danger in it limiting free speech. WHICH I AM ALL FOR, BY THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!
***REVISED***
ReplyDelete"That was the comment I made in a neighborhood bloag at thestate.com upon reading the referenced article ."
to:
"That was the comment I made in a neighborhood BLOG at thestate.com upon reading the referenced article ."
:)
Thank you.