Restricting public behavior and civil liberties [Archive]

Buccaneer

09-26-2006, 06:59 PM

Here's a short and simple column from American City & County and some cities' efforts to restrict public behavior. Nothing really new but I wonder how you view this in light of the recent trendy debates on civil liberties? One could argue that local enforcement of such has much greater and direct impact on your lives than anything the feds might do - but the latter gets some screaming very loudly (e.g., wiretaps, phone records, etc.) without knowing why. Here's the article

http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_uncivil_liberties/

Uncivil liberties

Sep 1, 2006 12:00 PM
By Bill Wolpin


Having been labeled everything from rude to insensitive, New Yorkers are becoming models of civility, if only because their local government is requiring it. Faced with residents who “boo” the mayor at parades, baseball fans who become unhinged while watching the Mets play the Yankees and dogs that bark endlessly into the night, New York City has been arresting some residents for rude behavior and even using some of its “finest” to throw its rowdiest into the hoosegow.

<SCRIPT language=Javascript type=text/javascript>var count = ''; //GENERIC COUNT VARcount = 'rectangle' + ++rectanglecount; //180x150 var a = Math.random(); var zzzzadslotzzzz= a * 100000;document.write('');</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=Javascript type=text/javascript>if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {document.write('[Munched] (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/amcity.iclick.com/adtarget;page=government_uncivil_liberties;subss=;subs=;area=mag;site=amcity;kw=;sz=180x150;tile=' + count + ';pos=' + count + ';ord='+zzzzadslotzzzz+')') } </SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT> [Munched] (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/amcity.iclick.com/adtarget;page=government_uncivil_liberties;subss=;subs=;area=mag;site=amcity;kw=;sz=180x150;tile=1;pos=1;ord=123456)</NOSCRIPT>
Restricting public behavior is nothing new, but most legislation focuses on obvious offenses, such as public drunkenness. Seattle enacted “Street Civility Laws” in the early 1990s that forbid such things as defecating in public places, and San Francisco has passed about a dozen “Quality of Life” laws aimed at discouraging prostitution, selling drugs and panhandling.

Standards of behavior change, and laws evolve with them. More than 80 years ago, New York's organ grinders and their monkeys were as ubiquitous as today's street vendors selling hot dogs. I'm not sure if it was the noise or having to step over the monkey poo that caused New York's Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia to ban them in 1936. Eventually, though, they were replaced by people who need to be reminded that public spaces aren't their exclusive playpins.

In 2003, the city imposed a $50 fine on those who insist on using their cell phone during a movie, play or concert. The next year, the city made it illegal to interfere with professional sporting events, and last year, the Queens Borough Council added penalties for fans who throw objects on the field or, worse, spit at team members. So far, charges have been brought against 11 people, all of whom were attending Yankees and Mets games. One man was fined $2,000 and served nine weekends in jail. The same council also is sending unruly parents who have been ejected from Little League games to anger management classes.

Possibly because New York's crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 — and now has the lowest crime rate of any major American city — its current city government has the luxury of attacking the less serious offenses, if not the minor annoyances of everyday life. Obnoxious sports fans and inconsiderate cell phone users aren't the only targets either.

Three years ago, armed with about 1,000 daily noise complaints tracked through the city's 311 call center, Mayor Bloomberg pushed through new codes that affected nightclub music, ice cream trucks and barking dogs. His smoking ban in 2003 affected every restaurant and gin joint in town, and buried another classic New York City image, the smoke-filled back rooms of Tammany Hall.

Not many people are complaining about the crackdown on antisocial behavior, including New York's American Civil Liberties Union. But why should they? Civil liberties are not at stake when you stop someone from taking liberties with our civilities.

Those who complain say that the new rules take the fun out of “Fun City.” Are they saying that a few inconsiderate jerks are what makes New York one of the greatest cities in the world? Get outta here.

[email protected] ([email protected])

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>

© 2006 Prism Business Media Inc

JonInMiddleGA

09-26-2006, 07:05 PM

Somebody ought to tell the writer that Spellcheck is pretty handy.

("playpins")

saldana

09-26-2006, 08:22 PM

i am sure this is not going to be the leading opinion here, but i dont see a problem with the laws/restrictions they are talking about in this article...my stance holds that your rights have reached their limits when they begin to infringe upon someone elses (i.e. your right to talk on your cell phone ends when it infringes on my right to watch a movie). although i concede that once you start giving up your civil liberties it is difficult to get them back, or stop giving them away, i dont have a problem with "public decency" type laws.

sabotai

09-26-2006, 08:26 PM

Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

Galaxy

09-26-2006, 08:33 PM

i am sure this is not going to be the leading opinion here, but i dont see a problem with the laws/restrictions they are talking about in this article...my stance holds that your rights have reached their limits when they begin to infringe upon someone elses (i.e. your right to talk on your cell phone ends when it infringes on my right to watch a movie). although i concede that once you start giving up your civil liberties it is difficult to get them back, or stop giving them away, i dont have a problem with "public decency" type laws.

I kinda agree with this. The smoking regulations are very big part of this. Being someone interested in the restaurant industry, cities like Chicago have ban Foie Gras from being sold. I guess the question is, where do you draw the line?

st.cronin

09-26-2006, 08:35 PM

I'm looking forward to the Supremes weighing in on the constitutionality of defecating in public.

Galaxy

09-26-2006, 08:49 PM

I'm looking forward to the Supremes weighing in on the constitutionality of defecating in public.

When does that get heard and ruled?

Mustang

09-26-2006, 11:00 PM

Interesting place to put this article -

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/26/trans.fat.ban.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would apply only to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.

Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos.

McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal.

"McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said.

New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.

Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.

The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

ISiddiqui

09-26-2006, 11:07 PM

Some city is going to ban using peanut oil soon...

dawgfan

09-27-2006, 01:17 AM

Interesting place to put this article -

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/26/trans.fat.ban.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.
I think this kind of ban is going too far. Unlike cigarette smoke, which can affect those that choose not to smoke, you only are affected by trans fatty acids if you choose to eat them.

Rather than ban them, I think they should instead require food vendors to indicate when a dish or food item contains trans fatty acids - that way the consumer is fully informed and can their own decision about whether to buy and consume foods that contain them. I have a feeling this action would work pretty effectively in reducing trans fatty acid intake through consumer choice, with many restaurants voluntarily switching to less unhealthy oils.