The prosecutor, Trish McAllister, disagreed that Smith's whistling is protected by the First Amendment. A Portland city ordinance says whistling, hooting and other unnecessary noises that "annoy, disturb or injure the health, peace or safety of others" are forms of disorderly conduct.
So, at least for now, it's "whistle while you walk" for Smith.
In a similar but entirely unrelated matter Reuters reports:
A man from Long Island, New York, is facing up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine after a neighbor complained to police he was laughing too loudly, his lawyer said on Wednesday.
According to the New York Post:
[The complainant's] wife, Virginia, defended the summonses, saying, “The police investigated and found there was cause. I think the police can answer all your questions. I think the police did what they thought was best.”
According to the New York Post:
[The complainant's] wife, Virginia, defended the summonses, saying, “The police investigated and found there was cause. I think the police can answer all your questions. I think the police did what they thought was best.”
Are these really examples of silliness in the law or are these incidents reported in a way so as to make the law seem silly? It's hard to tell. Probably the most that we can say is that the law maintains order by encouraging or discouraging certain conduct. Law enforcers have a certain amount of discretion in deciding what laws to enforce and how to enforce them. If we don't like the way law enforcers employ the law, we would have to rely on administrative and political processes to intervene. Ultimately, society is affected by a confluence of all these factors: law, and administrative and political processes.
The "Portland Whistler" (posted August 2012 - Hey! Who is aggressively following whom?)
No comments:
Post a Comment