Mailbag: Newport’s party law suggests elements of the Riot Act

“Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King!”

Perhaps these words are not immediately recognizable to the majority of Americans, but they hold great historical relevance for this country. What you have just read is from the text of the Riot Act, a law enacted in 1715 as a response to growing tumult in the British Empire. The statement above was to be read to any gathering of 12 or more people deemed by the authorities to be “unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled,” and those who did not disperse could be held guilty of a felony punishable by death.

Of course, we have evolved since then, and death is generally no longer considered a reasonable penalty for the crime of failing to disperse. But in comparing the text of the Riot Act, passed nearly 300 years ago by a monarchical government, with Newport Beach’s Loud and Unruly Gathering Ordinance (LUGO) and the Fourth of July/”Safety Enhancement Zone” laws passed some years ago, one finds uncanny similarities.

In both sets of laws, officers have basically full discretion to punish a small group of people for whatever they see fit. These officers need only proclaim to the gathering that they are “being unruly,” whatever the officer considers that to mean, and that the gathering must disperse quickly or face consequences — whether it be a 100-person disturbance or an eight-person book club.

Is this the sort of law that we wish to see more of? Outdated appeals to authority, laws which require us to maintain the goodwill of our lords and ladies, lest we be punished, based on a wholly subjective set of criteria, for daring to exercise any amount of the freedom we supposedly hold dear?

It is important to consider that the Riot Act was one of many laws passed by an oppressive English crown, which helped to cause the American Revolution, and it’s quite ironic that our city would pass similar laws that seem targeted directly at Independence Day revelers who wish to commemorate our rebellion against exactly this sort of law.

There are already adequate laws on the books to deal with public nuisances. It is already illegal to be loud, drunk or unruly in public, and there are already laws against creating a noisy disturbance in your own home.

There is absolutely no need for this additional law, which restricts the ability of people to have gatherings in their own homes, especially not if that law also gives police the discretion to punish these gatherings based on a nebulous set of wholly subjective criteria.

These laws should never have been passed in the first place, but it is now time for the City Council to make right and repeal these laws.

Jamie Dow
Newport Beach

..

Newport-Mesa needs term limits

I have been a decades-long resident of Newport Beach with kids educated at Mariners, Newport Elementary, Ensign and Harbor High. I think it is high time for the school district trustees to adhere to immediate term limits.

Interestingly, no current trustees have children in the school system, nor have had in many years, and some of the trustees have served for upwards of 36 years! Do you think these folks are really in touch with today’s education realities?

I think it is important that at least some trustees have children in the district to be proper stewards. I note that this issue could come before the July 12 meeting, whether it does or not could be a matter of politics!

Pete Rabbitt
Newport Beach