<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I think Garrett makes absolute sense in this matter and is basically asking that we don't go from the current too liberal law to the polar opposite in the form of an oppressive law lest we whittle away at our freedoms as written by our founding fathers. History paints the consequences of previous attempts and outcomes of oppressing freedom and it's not a pretty sight.<BR>
<BR>
Why should the pendulum of democrazy swing so wide when the center is the safest for all?<BR>
<BR>
We should Garrett some slack, remove ourselves from our frame worked box that we were socialized in and look at the issue from different angles, as with all issues, with an open mind. Then decide.<BR>
<BR>
Now where's my ol' Sabbath 8 track? I feel a head banging coming on.<BR>
<BR>
Don <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> <BR>> Message: 3<BR>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:48:22 -0700 (PDT)<BR>> From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Amendment Update<BR>> To: J Ford <privatejf32@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Message-ID: <450201.40764.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> J :],<BR>> <BR>> If people are breaking other laws, like peeing and<BR>> pooping in public, fighting, or screaching their cars,<BR>> then the police can initiate a citation. Those<BR>> activities are not covered by the noise ordinance. <BR>> You can read it for yourself at the city website:<BR>> (this is the current ordinance)<BR>> <BR>> www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/toc.asp<BR>> <BR>> I never said that those 17% are necessarily not<BR>> disturbing the peace beyond a reasonable doubt as<BR>> covered under the noise ordinance. If those 17% are<BR>> the problem, then pass a law that targets them, not<BR>> all the other citizens of our town who are<BR>> responsible.<BR>> <BR>> I'm sure you appreciate free speech, for you are very<BR>> vocal in a not so harmonious way on this list, imho. <BR>> I believe you don't appreciate freedom of assembly, at<BR>> least for some people you harass here, so bare with<BR>> me.<BR>> <BR>> The First Amendment of our Constitution is pretty<BR>> clear in guaranteeing us both of those rights. To<BR>> pass a law that is so sweeping, unnecessary,<BR>> potentially an invasion of privacy and a violation of<BR>> our rights, and open for a law suit is too extreme for<BR>> me, and I would hope for other people living in<BR>> Moscow.<BR>> <BR>> A party is an assembly, and if you can't recognize<BR>> that, then obviously we just have a different<BR>> interpretation of definitions of words.<BR>> <BR>> >From dictionary.com:<BR>> <BR>> assembly<BR>> <BR>> 1. an assembling or coming together of a number of<BR>> persons, usually for a particular purpose: The<BR>> principal will speak to all the students at Friday's<BR>> assembly.<BR>> 2. a group of persons gathered together, usually for a<BR>> particular purpose, whether religious, political,<BR>> educational, or social.<BR>> <BR>> If they really want to solve the problem then extend<BR>> the period between warnings to one month, between the<BR>> hours of 10 pm and 7 am and be specific about what<BR>> those violations are.<BR>> <BR>> As the law is now proposed, police officers will have<BR>> the authority to issue a citation on the spot to<BR>> anyone anywhere in Moscow at anytime for making noise<BR>> the officer deems offensive. There is no set noise<BR>> limit or level. <BR>> <BR>> How Draconian of a law do you need before you will<BR>> say, "Stop?"<BR>> <BR>> The way I look at it, we have a responsibility to<BR>> defend our rights guaranteed to us, because they are<BR>> constantly being chipped away. Perhaps I'm extreme in<BR>> my position, but at the very least, realize that these<BR>> are the kind of laws that create a police state. As I<BR>> said before, the Taliban and Iranian government would<BR>> love this sort of law. Having the power to intimidate<BR>> people's freedom expression with no outside complaint<BR>> that a problem even exists.<BR>> <BR>> The type of people who you describe who are unruly<BR>> would be better dealt with under a more reasonable<BR>> law.<BR>> <BR>> Why put the pressure on police to be the deciding<BR>> factor on what noise is acceptable? That should be<BR>> established by the the surrounding community and I'm<BR>> sure most would complain regarding the unruly people<BR>> you describe. I have a hard time believing that<BR>> everybody who would be bothered would be intimidated<BR>> to call the cops. Thus, the police would take action<BR>> and issue citations if the problems persists. I have<BR>> no problem with that.<BR>> <BR>> Most sincerely,<BR>> <BR>> Garrett Clevenger<BR>> <BR>> ps That is my real name if you ever care to meet. I<BR>> have no clue, though, who J :} is, but it's pretty<BR>> cool name. How do you sign your signature???<BR>> <BR>> pss Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify my<BR>> position more;p<BR>> <BR>> pss If you are so uncomfortable with the First<BR>> Amendment, and will call the part you quoted of my<BR>> original post "BUNK!", then I suggest you move to<BR>> China, Russia, or a number of other countries where<BR>> citizens don't enjoy the freedoms we have here.<BR>> <BR>> --- J Ford <privatejf32@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > Mr, Clevenger -whomever you may be:<BR>> > <BR>> > You state:<BR>> > <BR>> > "Duke's analogy was police ticketing drivers if they<BR>> > break the law. <BR>> > Driving is not a guaranteed constitutional right. <BR>> > You need to get a<BR>> > drivers license in order to legally drive. There<BR>> > are set rules and<BR>> > speed limits you must follow and there is a<BR>> > potential for physically<BR>> > hurting or killing someone if you are reckless.<BR>> > <BR>> > Free<BR>> > speech and the right to assembly, on the other hand,<BR>> > are guaranteed by<BR>> > the First Amendment to our Constitution. This is a<BR>> > civil liberty that<BR>> > as Americans we should be proud of and defend<BR>> > against those who wish to<BR>> > limit it."<BR>> > <BR>> > My response: <BR>> > <BR>> > B U N K!<BR>> > <BR>> > Blasting your music at 3am, fighting on the streets<BR>> > at the same hour, ripping your car through<BR>> > neighborhoods at the same hour, peeing and<BR>> > defecating on neighbor's property, "partying" are<BR>> > NOT - that's NOT!!!!! - guaranteed rights. These<BR>> > "parties" and attendees are NOT practicing "free<BR>> > speech" (last I heard "Prince" and "Black Sabbath"<BR>> > do not live in Moscow) by blasting the<BR>> > so-called-music and waking everyone up in the area. <BR>> > Being at a "party" is not assembly; it is what it is<BR>> > - a PARTY! Those people are not gathered there for<BR>> > any political or social-affecting reason - they are<BR>> > there to get drunk, be loud, and they do a bang-up<BR>> > job of disturbing the entire area.<BR>> > <BR>> > It MAY be only 17% of the population that is doing<BR>> > this "partying" - but it affects a whole lot more<BR>> > than 17% of the population when they are this<BR>> > disruptive and unruly.<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > J :]<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:32:11 -0700<BR>> > From: garrettmc@verizon.net<BR>> > To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Amendment<BR>> > Update<BR>> > <BR>> > I attended the administrative meeting last Monday to<BR>> > talk with some city council members, the city<BR>> > attorney and assistant chief of police David Duke<BR>> > about the proposal.<BR>> > <BR>> > The city council will be voting on this on November<BR>> > 5 at 7pm at city council chambers.<BR>> > <BR>> > The noise ordinance as amended will allow police<BR>> > officers to issue a citation on the spot to anyone<BR>> > anywhere in Moscow at anytime for making noise the<BR>> > officer deems offensive. There is no set noise<BR>> > limit. This potentially will lead to violation of<BR>> > our First Amendment rights.<BR>> > <BR>> > According to the police department, 17% of noise<BR>> > violations are repeat offenders (party houses), the<BR>> > supposed target of this amendment. It is offensive<BR>> > that this council will violate our First Amendment<BR>> > rights to target these 17%. Why should everybody in<BR>> > Moscow be subject to this draconian law?<BR>> > <BR>> > If they really wanted to target these 17%, the<BR>> > modification would expand the 48 hour time period<BR>> > between<BR>> > warnings to one month and be within the times of 10<BR>> > pm to 7am. To me, that seems like the most logical<BR>> > and at least worth a try to see if it works, rather<BR>> > than changing the law so extremely. It will also<BR>> > reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit and penalty<BR>> > against the city if the court finds it<BR>> > unconstitutional.<BR>> > <BR>> > The proposal before the city council is not<BR>> > responsible legislation.<BR>> > <BR>> > It is also counter intuitive to building community<BR>> > through neighborly relations. To rely on the police<BR>> > to solve an issue that is best resolved through<BR>> > citizens rather than law enforcement will lead to<BR>> > the dissolution of community responsibility. The<BR>> > police should approach noisy people after neighbor<BR>> > complaints, rather than proactively seeking out<BR>> > these noisy people. That would be a waste of their<BR>> > time.<BR>> > <BR>> > Duke's analogy was police ticketing drivers if they<BR>> > break the law. Driving is not a guaranteed<BR>> > constitutional right. You need to get a<BR>> > drivers license in order to legally drive. There<BR>> > are set rules and speed limits you must follow and<BR>> > there is a potential for physically hurting or<BR>> > killing someone if you are reckless.<BR>> > <BR>> > Free speech and the right to assembly, on the other<BR>> > hand, are guaranteed by the First Amendment to our<BR>> > Constitution. This is a civil liberty that as<BR>> > Americans we should be proud of and defend against<BR>> > those who wish to limit it.<BR>> > <BR>> > They also argued that you can fight this charge in<BR>> > court. That is also bogus, because by that time you<BR>> > have already paid a penalty of time, hassle and<BR>> > potentially fees.<BR>> > <BR>> > This is a bad law and will potentially be abused. <BR>> > It also psychologically suppresses people's freedom<BR>> > of expression by fearing they will be ticketed for a<BR>> > misdemeanor, which is also an extreme charge and<BR>> > penalty (ranging from $159 to $359) for making a<BR>> > little bit of noise.<BR>> > <BR>> > This law, the way I see it, is another attempt to<BR>> > water down our rights. <BR>> > The Bush administration has seen fit to violate our<BR>> > 4th Amendment rights of unreasonable search and<BR>> > seizure through warrantless wiretaps, among other<BR>> > things.<BR>> > <BR>> > The city council needs to hear from you. Please<BR>> > take a moment to tell them to reject the amendment<BR>> > or to modify it to expand the time between warnings<BR>> > to one month, between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am<BR>> > (and complaints should be citizen driven, not police<BR>> > driven) rather than voting on it as is. <BR>> > <BR>> > Aaron Ament aaronament@moscow.com<BR>> > Bill Lambert blambert@ci.moscow.id.us<BR>> > Linda Pall lpall@moscow.com;<BR>> > John Weber jweber@moscow.com<BR>> > Tom Lamar tlamar@moscow.com<BR>> > Kit Crane kcraine@moscow.id.usMayor Nancy Chaney <BR>> > nchaney@ci.moscow.id.us<BR>> > <BR>> > Thank you,<BR>> > <BR>> > Garrett Clevenger<BR><BR><BR><br /><hr />Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. <a href='http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033' target='_new'>Get it now!</a></body>
</html>