"One of the sections reads, '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.'
Another section states, '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.'"
Good thing this isn't applicable in my place of residency.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Here's hoping that cops start prosecuting Nextel users. The ones who use their phones in speakerphone/walkie-talkie mode at maximum volume in public...
And those are EVERYWEHRE in Michigan. Nothing annoys me more than hearing those things go off at the movies, waiting in line at USPS, or even in class!
Good thing I just missed Brighton by living in Jackson, home of our "Captin Jackson" superhero! He wouldnt let people get away with annoying another. Maybe Brighton needs this dude to help enforce the law!
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Referring to that "parents-named-their-boy-Adolf-Hilter-thread - now, how does that hold up with the constitutional right of freedom of speech?
This is kind of a "I-don't-like-your-stupid-face-and-if-I-can-convince-the-cop-that-you-are-ugly-he-will-ticket-you" law which would not hold up because it would be nilled and voided by higher ranking state-federal-constitutional laws.
Is that really needed? I mean, there are laws prohibiting loitering, drinking in the public, cruising on city roads and picking flowers in Starkville Ms already.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
Quoting SHUPirate1 (Thread starter): "One of the sections reads, '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.'
Another section states, '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.'"
Good thing this isn't applicable in my place of residency.
In the UK we have a range of such offences, such as 'causing a public nuisance' and other things relating to using foul, threatening or abusive language in public.
I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. Why should someone be allowed to harrass or abuse you whilst you are gonig about your lawful business?
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
Itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1667 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3661 posts, 
From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2402 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6347 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
