[Past Your Eyes]

So the city council can have all the free speech it wants but the general public is now limited. What is this world coming to?

[jedi150]

1984 in 2008. Thought Police next?

[Daveinyork]

I’d bet that begging for money is not covered by the ordinance. It would be viewed as serving a legitimate purpose.

[PalmettoMason]

City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made by police officers.

Oh yeah, THAT'S going to work out well!

[Doogle]

...can’t wait for the first suit

[AndrewB]

There was a time when these sorts of things were considered humor.

[Chode]

won't stand...

[basil]

Just for the heck of it, it would be interesting to know where Brighton is.

[YOUGOTIT]

So this means if one is a Christian and says anything about the bible than they will be ticketed because they have upset the non-Christians.

[aculeus]

Just for the heck of it, it would be interesting to know where Brighton is.

I kept reading until I reached a tip-off word "chambers" which means it's most likely in the UK.

Failing to id the location is a common (and annoying) error of posters. In my posting days (now retired) I never made that mistake.

[Larry Lucido]

Michigan ping?

[certrtwngnut]

I am guilty everyday as is almost everyone else that I know, but I have no money left after paying my taxes & fees. I guess I will have to be put in jail for my crimes. Sadly it seems that we are reaching the tipping point, I hope thet we can still get back to some sanity.

[samtheman]

I bet Imams calling for the decapitation of all non-Muslim Brits won’t get a ticket.

[Paladin2]

"It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”

Does this include passing and enforcing stupid laws?

[Alas Babylon!]

This will never pass muster by any jurist who believes in the Constitution.

From comments to the article at the source:

U.S. Supreme Court
COATES v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)

Decided June 1, 1971

MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

A Cincinnati, Ohio, ordinance makes it a criminal offense for "three or more persons to assemble . . . on any of the sidewalks . . . and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by . . . ." The issue before us is whether this ordinance is unconstitutional on its face.

Declared unconstitutional in 1971.

Where is the legal advice of the city attorney????

See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/coates.html

[VRWCtaz]

Mommy, he's touching me - make him stop!
No I'm not.
He's doing it again, Mommy.
No I'm not.
He's almost touching me now!
No I'm not.
Mommy, he won't play with me!
No I'm not.

I've heard this conversation before.

[Pablo64]

“It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”

It sounds to me like the entire City Council could be ticketed and fined under this ridiculous ordinance just for passing it!

[Doohickey]

Is this Michigan? It took me 10 minutes to figure out at the source.

[snarks_when_bored]

Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton

Ordnance-worthy ordinance alert.

[polymuser]

Evangelizing, Salvation Army bells, pro-conservative discussions and criticizing That One will certainly be subject to this ‘law’.

[Gritty]

“It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”

Good!

This means we now have a way to fight Liberals.