| I've heard of spin and putting a positive light on things. The spin however digs you deeper usually, if you look at it closely. The media has revisited the Brighton annoyance ordinance, and mentions our FOIA work and "citizen journalism" in a note of respect. Here at the blog of WDIV Detroit and WILX & WLNS Lansing, which appears to be a rehash of an AP story by the Press and Argus of Livingston that I can't handily find. Here's a clip: Six months after it adopted more stringent ordinances that outlawed annoying behavior and harassment, the city has not ticketed anyone under the revised rules. Police Chief Tom Wightman tells the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell the ordinances serve as a deterrent because people know about them. But a political consultant who runs two citizen journalist Web sites focused on politics and local government says the changes were a bad idea and illegal. Chetly Zarko said the ordinances are too subjective and not easily understood.
Why is the portion I have underlined funny to me. First, it proves that the Police Chief believes at least that the law has a "chilling effect" on conduct. That's unconstitutional First Amendment restraint (I've noted the law is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Coates v. City of Cincinnatti analysis due to vagueness). Second, its a reversal from the whining and complaining the City officials went through in January about how the media blew this out of proportion. To get the "everyone knows" about it argument, the City would have needed and wanted to encourage media attention. Maybe that was the plan all along. I've lost respect for Wightman. Which is it? Unfair for the media to broadcast your stupid policy, or good deterrent if they do? I suppose this blog has contributed to deterring crime? |
