Michigan City Bans "Being Annoying in Public" »
Posted By Shana4Liberty 1 year ago in NewsLast Thursday the Brighton (MI) City Council approved a local ordinance that tickets anyone caught annoying others in public “by word of mouth, sign or motions.” This is perhaps one of the most obvious infringements on free speech in this nation’s history. Considering the fact that this Amendment has been incorporated to the states since the 1920’s, can anyone please inform me on how this does not violate the First Amendment which reads-
Read Full Story at unitedliberty.org »
2376 Views Share Story 35 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Shana4Liberty
I'm a stay-at-homeschooling mom of 4 living in central Alabama, but a native of south Texas. Feel free to friend me and send me ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 39 of 47 Comments (view all)
-
92%
berkeley1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this supports the theory that no state would vote for the bill of rights if it appeared on the ballot today. brighton represents the dismal future.
Reply
it will cost the local taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to fight this in court. what idiots.-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
67%
reidgator1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Psycho!
Reply
If I shout down a political figure during a speech, am I not "sh!tting" on his/her right to speak and the rights of the audience to hear what he/she had to say?
Are you actually condemning/criticizing the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes @ GW?
Using your logic, all public protests could be criminal!!!
You're logic is pathetic!!!
-
-
-
-
-
78%
Albmore1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The question is why do we allow this? MI citizens should be pounding at cities hall door until this is revoked. It is as rightfromwrong says a violation of freedom of speech. These open ended laws are giving OUR rights away and allowing the representives to use these laws as they see fit.
Reply-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
StevieGee1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You have a right to remain silent"... Oh geez here it comes again... "Anything you say can and will be used against you"... Oh man, why do they always say this... "You have a right to an attorney"... Man, this is so annoying... "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you"... Oh please make it stop!!!
Reply -
-
50%
reidgator1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a predicted outcome of the "tolerance" campaign.
Reply
Those supporting this ban want to be tolerated, but do not want to tolerate our dissent.
It reminds me of an episode in South Carolina in the 1990s.
A "moderate Republican" had spoken out aginst the conservative Republicans for their vocal stance against abortion, gay-marriage, and other social issues. He then meekly apologized to his fellow Republicans for criticizing them, but justified his criticism of them by saying "I just did not want my silence to be perceived as approval."
Within the next 24 hours, all across the state, liberal voices rang out on TV and in the print media supporting him, saying,
"That's right, he did not want his silence to be perceived as approval."
"Yes, way to go. He just did not want his silence to be (uh) ...perceived... (eh)...as approval. (uh-oh)"
They realized that that is the exact position of the conservatives. The conservatives spoke out against these issues because they did not want THEIR silence to be perceived as approval. The liberals had been caught in a double-standard.
Same thing here.... a double-standard.
I do not know if this ban is the result of liberals or conservatives (perhaps they want to ban liberals from criticizing them), but, either way, it reminds me of Eric Blair's (aka, George Orwell) "Animal Farm", where "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." -
-
-
-
50%
antibrainwasher1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If flatulating in church qualifies, I'd be in trouble. Or if my christmas display, where teenage jesus is humping a reindeer while santa is didling an alterboy is annoying to the toothless tent revival evangelical community, I'd have to leave Michigan.
Reply -
67%
kevinbgood6211 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I annoy someone and they report it and then I get annoyed by their reporting it -- does everyone get tickets ? What if the police officer handing me the ticket annoys me ? does he get a ticket ? Can I give a ticket to everyone in Brighton for annoying me with this stupid law ?
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.