A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media

[EA]

Video Restrictions and the UPC: Time for a Policy Change?

I live in Illinois, and my fair state is not a stranger to out-dated city, county and state ordinances.

Recently, I came across an online posting which stated that it is illegal to spit on a sidewalk in the city of Ottawa, Illinois. At first glance, I was amused that someone would actually take the time to craft such an ordinance, especially considering all of the problems we face in this crazy world. But, after considering it further, I guess I can see the point. After all, nobody wants a walk down a city sidewalk turning into a loogie-dodging gauntlet.

So, maybe somebody with a Joan of Arcish missional fervor took it upon themselves to punish all loogie spitters? “Good for them”, I say.

Trouble is, I don’t think they considered all of the implications of the ordinance.

What if an unsuspecting Ottawaian, while walking upon a city sidewalk, yawns, only to have a big, fat, hairy gnat fly straight into his mouth? What is he to do, spit or swallow?

Now, I recognize that the man could very calmly and rationally step off of the sidewalk before he spits, but, let’s get real, the possibility of him knowing the law and caring enough to comply with it are remote. Especially when one considers the poor guy has a big, hairy gnat in his mouth!

I’m sure the guy who crafted the original ordinance didn’t think about big, fat, hairy gnat-swallowing incidents. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps his intentions were just as good as his foresight was bad?

But, in the end, it is left up to the local police to decide whether or not to enforce an archaic, poorly-crafted city ordinance. Law enforcement will have to decide if the guy really swallowed a gnat or not. And, truth be told, it really doesn’t matter if the guy did swallow a gnat, the law doesn’t allow him to spit on a sidewalk without penalty.

So, what to do? I don’t know how often the good people of Ottawa are compelled to spit upon city sidewalks but, if they do spit, law enforcement will be forced to respond in one of two ways.

First, they could enforce the law. They could issue a citation which would probably lead to a fine and a really, really angry citizen. When the citizen protests the officer could point out, over and over, that “it’s in my manual.” He could overlook the fact that it’s just as gross to spit one inch from the sidewalk as it is to spit ON the sidewalk, even though the law does not address each situation equally. He could completely ignore the fact that the ordinance does not consider all situations, and is therefore, poorly crafted and unnecessary.

Or, the officer could ignore what his city manual says. That’s not a very good idea either. Why? Because laws mean something, and it is not the duty of law enforcement to interpret laws. What if he chose to ignore a theft, a rape or a murder? What if two separate policemen enforce the law in different ways? No, ignoring the ordinance leads to confusion, and the idea that laws are meant to be ignored. Not a good message.

And so we are left with the reality that the only real solution is to change the law. And this should not be a problem considering that government exists to protect citizens, not hurt them. City government must decide whether the ordinance is worth enforcing. It must decide whether the circumstances which birthed the ordinance still exist. Caution must be exercised, so as not to appear duplicitous.

I think we would do well to remember that gag reflexes are perfectly biologically normal, and that some things are just not worth swallowing, no matter what the penalty may be for rejecting them. When faced with the choice of gagging on a gnat or finding oneself on the wrong side of outdated ordinances, most will choose to spit.