A LAW AGAINST ANNOYING
From the Detroit Free Press:
Are you tempted to barrage your ex with text messages? Has your neighbor driven you to the edge?
You’d better think twice before you hit “send” on your cell phone in Brighton, Michigan.
The Brighton City Council amended its code to make repeatedly performing acts intended to “seriously annoy” another person a crime.
Mayor Pro Tem Ricci Bandkau said she voted for the measure to protect residents.
“If you were annoyed because someone is mowing their lawn at 3 a.m. and it bothers you to the point you contact police, the police have the option to listen to you and do what they think is best,” said Bandkau. “I have full trust in the police chief and the Police Department.
“If they feel this is the right thing to do, I totally back them as a City Council member.”
Brighton Councilwoman Claudia Roblee said the amendment was designed to prevent harassment that falls short of the state’s stalking prohibition.
“I felt that our citizens needed more protection,” she said. “In today’s electronic society, people can really harass you — text message after text message could be sent. You had no recourse; now you do.”
Roblee said she doesn’t think the ordinance violates the Constitution’s protection of free speech.
“In my mind, this is not stepping on the First Amendment. It’s trying to prevent a situation from escalating before it comes to violence,” she said.
But an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan disagrees.
Michael Steinberg says the ordinance is overbroad, vague and unconstitutional.
“It gives police discretion to punish people for any speech officers find annoying,” Steinberg said. “We successfully challenged an annoying-person statute in Detroit five or six years ago.
“I was surprised to hear other municipalities passed these ordinances. It’s language that’s a relic of days gone by.”
Other communities have similar statutes; Royal Oak’s ordinance was the model for Brighton’s ordinance. Charles Semchena, a member of the Royal Oak City Commission, described the law as vague with “odd wording.”
“It appears this ordinance might be unenforceable,” he said of Royal Oak’s version.



















