Michigan city finds annoyance exception in First Amendment
posted at 1:31 pm on December 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The city of Brighton, Michigan have discovered an exception to free speech in the First Amendment. People can exercise their right to assemble and speak — just as long as no one gets annoyed by it. What a breakthrough!
Ticking someone off could get you a ticket in one Michigan city. The Brighton City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance allowing police in the Livingston County community to ticket and fine anyone who is annoying in public “by word of mouth, sign or motions.”
The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell reports the measure is modeled on a similar ordinance in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak.
I’m certain that this was what the founding fathers of this nation had in mind. After all, they never annoyed authorities or Loyalists with their demands for independence and freedom.
Devil’s Advocate at Copious Dissent remarks:
First of all, 99% of the complaints are going to be Unconstitutional. Political speech is almost always “annoying.” If it weren’t annoying to some people, there would be an overall consensus on the issue, and there would be no reason to express one’s political views about the topic.
Second, now financial resources for the police and prosecutors are going to be wasted on malcontents who are hypersensitive to being annoyed. I could think of 1000 other better ways for law enforcement to serve the people.
Michigan finds itself in such financial distress that its Congressional contingent has successfully harangued the White House into multi-billion-dollar loans to private enterprise. I find that extremely annoying. Do we get to issue citations to the entire state of Michigan now? Considering the economic mess the state government has created in that state, what they need is more annoying speech, not less, especially if it annoys the current power structure.
Freedom of speech means tolerating that speech we find annoying. In fact, freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t protect annoying speech. Pleasant and unremarkable speech needs no protection from government, after all. Unless the speech and signs violate some other law, perhaps by blocking entrances to buildings or impeding traffic, then those annoyed can easily avoid it — or rebut it with their own free speech.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Obama annoys me every time he opens his mouth. All the other liberals annoy me just by existing. Who do I see about lodging my complaint and getting relief?
Jvette on December 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM
this is… the onion…right??….
Drunk Report on December 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM
It’s true. My hometown in Michigan has become a national embarrassment. *sigh*
Daft Punk on December 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Could Hot Air be the next to impose the annoyance factor? Yikes. There would be no threads. Evah..!
katy on December 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
The line for lawyers who will be challenging this law forms to the right.
See, Michigan had created a jobs program in the litigation field.
Mallard T. Drake on December 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
This won’t last long. Even most libs would balk at this.
CherokeeJack on December 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I’ve heard of the heckler’s veto but the annoyed’s veto?
Unconstitutional due to vagueness.
And what’s the compelling state interest in banning annoying speech? I can’t see (or hear) it.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
I was born and raised in Royal Oak, MI, home of this bizarre annoyance law. Royal Oak is like the Greenwich Village of the southeast Michigan/Metro Detroit area. You have no idea how many annoying people live there. Main Street runs right through a 150 year old cemetery, which dead ends (pun intended) at the street where Jack Kevorkian lives.
People have a lot to be annoyed about there.
ramrocks on December 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Guess I’d be up for a life sentence huh?
Speakup on December 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
A model ordinance for the rest of the land.
1st Amendment is OUT. PC is IN.
Shall we call a Constitutional Convention, or just reinterpret the Living Document?
petefrt on December 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
No, they won’t. Not if it’s only applied to people expressing ideas libs don’t like. And libs are in control of applying the law.
Socratease on December 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Can we ban ugly and fat people as well? That annoys me to no end.
redshirt on December 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM
We’re not talking about Kos Kidz here. We’re talking about garden-variety Dem voters.
CherokeeJack on December 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Does TV count as annoying speech?
Johan Klaus on December 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
When a culture becomes so stagnant this is the crap that rises to the surface.
Speaking of suface crap rising…who runs the all three branches of the US Governenment? hummmm
katy on December 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
You can have any color car you want as long as it’s black.
- Henry Ford
MB4 on December 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
With Obama as president the type of Supreme Court Justices he
wouldwill appoint are the type of judges that would uphold this law as constitutional.Tommy_G on December 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I’m ugly and fat and annoyed by people who are annoyed by me.
Rod on December 20, 2008 at 1:59 PM
The MSM.
Tommy_G on December 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM
You know, if they’d had this while we were growing up, there’d be no budget deficit today.
I was pretty annoying as a teenager and twentysomething.
Okay, maybe into my thirties, if I was drunk.
Meryl Yourish on December 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I’m annoyed by all the comments here. All of YOU need to shut the eff up.
Bishop on December 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Does this mean that Susan Estritch will never speak publically in Brighton?
What a voice!
kingsjester on December 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM
A friend of mine once remarked that I hate people. I told him that wasn’t true, but I hate ignorance, a lack of awareness of one’s surroundings, sloth, and incompetence. Since nearly everyone around me is exhibiting at least one of these traits at any given point in time, it might me misinterpreted that I hate people.
Apparently then, Michigan is the place for me, where I can sue those who exhibit any of the above traits. I also heard union labor is also paying pretty well up there.
Anyone else see a correlation between Michigan passing a law against annoying or offending speech, and the fact that it’s one of the most Muslim-intensive states in the Union?
Spc Steve on December 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM
An ordinance against rap seems reasonable, at least when played with the car windows down.
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Mich. needs to adopt “loser pays” legislation. Just the name alone is priceless for we know which political party would go broke first.
katy on December 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Your missing something, I think. Speech can be annoying even if you agree with the content. As long as the ticket is not issued based on content, you can police speech to some degree. Thus the police can stop people from annoying someone who is eating at a restaurant or watching a movie. As long as it is enforced in a content neutral way, it is permissible.
RedSoxNation on December 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
+1
According to Paul Harvey (if I remember right), a few years ago, some highschool kids did a research project on how mice were affected by different types of music. They had the mice go through a maze and played the music. They found that the mice went fastest while listening to classical, followed by no music, then rock, and finally, those listening to rap…ate each other. /not kidding.
pannw on December 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I want to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony!
I want to speak, but but know I can’t, and that’s OK with me!
Limerick on December 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM
So, if I go down the street there with an NRA hat or an Impeach Obama t-shirt, I could be considered ‘annoying’ and thereby fined. Did the Twighlight Zone suddenly become reality??
Jawhol Mein Herr. I Vill Nicht Bin Annoying.
bullseye on December 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
That would be disturbing the peace or menacing. Ticketing “annoying” speech is a whole different animal and a slippery slope and we all know how well societies do with slippery slopes…/
katy on December 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Citizen ar–rest! Citizen ar–rest!
Guardian on December 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I’m sensing a breakthrough in how to deal with our gangbanger problem, if we can get ‘em all rounded up at the same time.
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM
If you are annoyed by my words…
A) you might be constipated
B) your girdle may be too tight
C) switch to decaf
Have a bad day!
whitetop on December 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Nope, none whatsoever.
This is a city ordinance and not a state law.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM
…this is your City Council on drugs…
stonemeister on December 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Exactly. I don’t see anything that indicates that the law refers to the content of the speech. There are already plenty of laws that restrict the *way* that you use speech: noise laws, gathering in streets, forms of protest, etc. I don’t think the First Amendment guarantees my right to follow you down the street yelling in your ear.
It’s fun to snark at stuff like this, but I think you’re way off the mark.
tneloms on December 20, 2008 at 2:46 PM
So we can go after MSNBC,CBS,NBC,ABC and sometimes Fox News?
HAPPY,HAPPY,JOY,JOY!!!!
christene on December 20, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Sure, but even if it’s content neutral there still has to be a clear definition of what “annoying” speech is.
It seems to me that it would not be possible (legally) to clearly delineate what constitutes annoying speech. And if the law is overly broad or vague, the courts would strike it down.
But even if they could somehow define annoying speech, in order to limit free speech there has to be a “compelling state interest” in doing so.
What’s the compelling interest in stopping annoying speech? Is there some harm that is being done in the city? Fights breaking out? People’s lives being disrupted?
The law, like God (and the devil), is in the details.
SteveMG on December 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Gotta be a lack of vit. d with months of no sun in the northern states. Something is messing with the brain cells up there.
L
letget on December 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Obama annoys me every time he opens his mouth. All the other liberals annoy me just by existing. Who do I see about lodging my complaint and getting relief?
Jvette
beachgirlusa on December 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I live in Livingston County. It is one of the few held by Republicans.
Fat lot of good that does, I guess.
angelat0763 on December 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I’m embarrassed that I was born in that state.
…
Ticket? What? You’re giving me a ticket for saying I’m embarrassed?
jgapinoy on December 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Someone should go to Brighton, MI city hall during a city council meeting, and stand up and declare the proceedings annoying.
Dasher on December 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Well, then. Consider ourselves banned!
redshirt on December 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM
So someone talking on their cell ‘phone could get a ticket?
Skandia Recluse on December 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Just pat the driveling fools on the noggin and ignore them…tear up the ticket.
JIMV on December 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Actually, the city of Brighton, Michigan has discovered an exception to free speech. Or, if you prefer, the people of the city of Brighton, Michigan have discovered an exception to free speech.
“City of Brighton” is a singular noun, not a plural one.
Sorry…this is one of those things that gets my eyelid twitching.
flipflop on December 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The unfortunate thing is that these same people keep retiring and moving to Northern Michigan and being annoyed by everything up here. They constantly want to “improve” things by trying to get more ordinances passed to the point that last summer the city police were actually getting out of their cars and measuring the grass in peoples yards so they could give them a summons to cut it or else! That’s what we need to waste our police on, yard and sign patrol!! That’s what annoys me, maybe I can get the city to pass an ordinance banning jackasses from retiring north!
flytier on December 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM
So… that was annoying speech to you then?
Would you have Ed fined for it?
LegendHasIt on December 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Man if being annoying is all that someone needs to get a ticket I would be issuing tickets to almost everyone.
nobleclem on December 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Before rushing to judgment on this one, I’ll wait to see if the idea goes statewide. A certain amount of civil rights curtailment might justify seeing John Conyers wearing a Denver boot.
Barnestormer on December 20, 2008 at 6:05 PM
If this is what they are talking about, it appears the ordinance has been around for a while.
News2Use on December 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Watch. The’ll put us in the same cell!
Rod on December 20, 2008 at 6:19 PM
How annoying.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
What does it say about an ugly fat guy that, while everyone is watching, corrects his spelling mistakes? That’s he’s an ugly, fat guy who doesn’t want to look stupid too? My wife would say I’ve already established that fact.
Rod on December 20, 2008 at 6:31 PM
OK then, what about a judge that hands down an annoying sentence?
redshirt on December 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM
In other news, accounts from Michigan-based posters to HA fall silent on all political fronts.
sethstorm on December 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Northern Michigan as in the Upper Peninsula?
There are places you would be the only one around for miles.
Judge recuses himself and faces his own trial.
sethstorm on December 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Michigan finds itself in such financial distress that its
You think you’re annoyed?…..I live in Michigan.
infidelgranny on December 20, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Is dissent considered annoying to government officials?
/Stalin
fossten on December 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I’m a little ambivalent on this one… if only because some people really do out of their way to not just speak but irritate people or harass them into doing what they want.
For example, take the protests in Berkley against the marine recruiting station. Or almost anything code pink has ever done. It’s obnoxious and it doesn’t need to be. They have a right to speak but not disrupt business.
So… that’s more or less where I stand on that one. if it gets code pink to respect people’s right to ignore them, then it’s good. If it’s used to stop ACTUALLY peaceful protests then it’s bad.
Karmashock on December 21, 2008 at 12:47 AM
No wonder that B. Hussein Obama cancelled his speach [speech?] there.
I guess the Brighton City Council will have to STFU as well. Silver linings. :oP
DannoJyd on December 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Libs just can’t take criticism. It’s like telling an alcoholic that he’s, well, an alcoholic.
Mojave Mark on December 21, 2008 at 10:37 AM
sharia law here we come
when are we going to rescue the survivors?
Sonosam on December 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM
You have it good, Infidelgranny. At least your state Supreme Court didn’t find that you can be liable for injuries to another party if you render emergency assistance. I’m REALLY annoyed, and I can’t issue a ticket. But I can recall them, through a process that’s, well, annoying.
BillH on December 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I’m ambivalent too.
How about someone going into a Chuckee Cheese, grabbing his crotch and yelling “F*** YOU!!!”
Legal?
The Constitution applies to political speech. This ain’t political speech.
Squiggy on December 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM
There are probably at least two laws against that already:
something along the lines of
“Creating a Public Disturbance”
“Public Indecency”
Although they may be worded differently in various places, nearly every jurisdiction has something similar.
The only REAL reasons for this new law can be to crush public dissent and increase the local government’s coffers.
To you people that think this might be a good idea, I have just two (over used) words:
Slippery Slope.
LegendHasIt on December 21, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Ed, Go ahead, join the general pile-on. Michigan, after all, is the source of all evil in the United States, isn’t it? I’m quite sure we can find stupid laws and stupid politicians in Minnesota. Speaking of which, Debbie Stabenow may have reached her level of competency in the House and Carl Levin is an ideological left winger, but Michigan hasn’t come anywhere close to electing to the Senate as odious a character as Al Franken.
We have conservatives who claim to be free-marketers who oppose wage and price controls, except when the federal government is telling UAW members that they make too much money.
We have other conservatives who don’t have a clue what a “supply chain” is and think that we won’t have a problem producing jets and tanks even if GM and their suppliers collapse.
We have Southern Republicans wanting to wage the Civil War all over again now that they have industries. Of course they have to ignore the fact that all of “their” industries are imported from other parts of the country or overseas because Southern agrarian culture has never been industrious – look at how their textile and furniture industries imploded in the face of foreign competition. Meanwhile big Dick, Shelby lies about the “new American auto industry” doing just fine as Toyota and Honda slip into the red and all the assembly facilities in his state are cutting production by 40% and Mercedes is buying out employees.
But, hey, if it makes you all warm and fuzzy to say bad stuff about Detroit and Michigan, whatever floats your boat.
Most Americans, including Ed, MM and AP don’t have a clue about manufacturing. They’re just the right of center version of all those paper pushers who brought on the financial crisis. They work with paper and words, not with tangible items.
I say this as a ideological conservative, so don’t even bother with the knee-jerk responses. The loans to GM were not an ideal solution. There was no ideal solution. This is just a crap sandwich that we have to eat to avoid even greater indigestion.
rokemronnie on December 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Sorry, rokemronnie. Screw the unions. If the “big three” cant deal with it, buhbye. Making my children bail them out isn’t right.
Squiggy on December 22, 2008 at 5:19 AM
Me thinks that I would go out and annoy as many people as possible as often as possible.
Stupid deserves to be highlighted.
The Rock on December 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Hate speech is saying anything the left hates.
There is nothing the left hates as much as a logical argument they cannot refute.
Telling the truth, on the witness stand, has got to annoy somebody.
The Rock on December 22, 2008 at 9:26 AM
No problemo. There is nothing about cities, school boards, counties etc in the 1st Amendment. Check it out.
Akzed on December 22, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Comment pages: