There appears to be no lawyers living in Brighton, Michigan or within telephone range of the city council. The city elders have made it a crime for anyone to commit acts that “seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.” Putting aside the vagueness and overbreadth violations, there is the restriction on travel by Paris Hilton, Rosie O’Donnell, and the other annual recipients of the most annoying people.
The cost of being annoying is $500 for each annoying occurrence. Even Ann Coulter might have trouble cover those costs since every breath she takes is annoying to many people. With a standard of “no legitimate purpose,” people like Barry Manilow will have to stay a far distance from the town limits.
To make matters worse, this is a case of the constitutionally blind following the constitutionally blind. Brighton insists that it is copying the language from the town of Royal Oak.
On its website, Brighton promises its citizens “the highest quality of life – culturally, socially, economically and environmentally.” Notably, this does not include constitutionally.
For the full story, click here.
Maybe we can consider them as a seceded part of the Union. No federal tax monies etc. and they can have their own 4th world banana Republic!
I have been to some crazy counties in the south, but was shocked to find some in Michigan as well. This one really does take the cake.
Good one Jericho!
Sally: “Let’s not even get started on drivers that drive veeerry slowlllllly in the passing lane on the highway.”
Ooh, man, I hate those! Let’s make an extra law for them, just to be sure 🙂
And all this in the spirit of Christmas I presume. In his time, many people considered Christ to be an annoying dick too, you know. He won’t get far if he resurrects in Brighton, hehe.
What is considered ‘annoying’ or even ‘sexual harassment’, much like ‘fairness and beauty is seen in the eye of the beholder…’
And for most us folks, that’s enough!
In other words, we know it when we see it!
‘If they acted with the town attorney’s blessing, I would suggest he/she contact his professional liability insurer.’
—-
😉 Oy vey iz mir…
Mike:
Your point is well taken about assessing the city fathers and mothers, if applicable, with the costs incurred by the taxpayers for enacting a blatantly unconstitutional ordinance. I would only do it, however, if they acted contrary to the advice of counsel on the constitutionality of the ordinance. If they acted with the town attorney’s blessing, I would suggest he/she contact his professional liability insurer.
In related news, the first people arrested under the new and certain to be challenged annoyance statute were the Brighton city council. As the police hauled them away, a council member was heard protesting, “We’re not annoying! We’re stupid!”
and on that note, Happy Holidays RILer’s!
The Brighton home page has several tabs, including “Service and Departments”, “Business and Community”, and “Events Calendar”.
Perhaps the most telling, however, is the prominent placement of the leading tab, “OUR GOVERNMENT”, where one can find a professionally cropped image of these photogenic constitutional scholars.
So does that include those that talk on their cell phone while in the checkout line at the store? Or what about the stranger on the bus that smacks their gum loudly? And of course, the parents that let their children run wildly about in a restaurant. Because those are all seriously annoying!!
Let’s not even get started on drivers that drive veeerry slowlllllly in the passing lane on the highway.
This should also include preschoolers who annoy each other just for fun. Children are most likely, the worst offenders!
What a way to waste people’s time and money!
How far is this place from Chicago? I’m gonna go get arrested. But, let’s just say I walk around in a chicken suit acting out the entire 4th season of Charlie’s Angles in Dutch; if someone thinks it’s amusing, will they refuse to arrest me.
And if I get arrested for the purpose of challenging this law, isn’t the challange of a moronic and unconstitutional law a “legitimate purpose” under this statute?
There have been times in my life when , “I couldn’t get arrested for trying”. I don’t know if I could deal with the self esteem issued of not getting arrested in Brighten.
Actually, I think I’ll call the Brighten Police Dept. and see if the ass-clowns who passed this ordinance can be charged under this ordinance for passing this ordinance.
The ordinance is, of course, unconstitutional on its face. The problem is that the city will spend tens of thousands of dollars in a useless effort to defend itself, a cost ultimately borne by the taxpayers. Then after the ordinance is tossed out by the courts, local political leaders will attack the judicial system for once more thwarting the will of the majority. One possible remedy for this sort of nonsense would be an assessment of attorney’s fees and costs against individual members of the council who voted to adopt a law which any reasonably informed person recognizes to be violative of the Constitution.
If