Sandy Springs City Council members voiced concerns that a proposed “buffer zone” amendment to the city’s disorderly conduct ordinance would violate individuals’ First Amendment rights and fails to address real concerns.
Police Chief Ken DeSimone and City Attorney Dan Lee presented the proposal during the city council’s Jan. 7 meeting. DeSimone said it would clarify the disorderly conduct ordinance when it came to people handing out flyers and harassing people at synagogues, temples and Jewish schools.
Lee said the ordinance addresses problems with unwanted flyers and hate mail left to intimidate and terrorize people. People shouldn’t be required to take flyers that they don’t want, he said. It also addresses the management of public property. He said the city has had problems with people on the public sidewalk who block the entrances to private properties. The proposal would set a limit on how close a person can be without consent.
Councilmember Melody Kelley said the language is broad and could be misused, a view Councilmember Andy Bauman shared.
“The ordinance is overly broad and risks chilling lawful expression, which is protected under the First Amendment. Restrictions on speech and assembly must be narrowly tailored to address specific, demonstrable problems, and this proposal doesn’t meet that standard,” Bauman told Rough Draft Atlanta.
Bauman said the proposed ordinance amendment is vague and overly broad language. It risks doing more harm than good and would undermine the freedoms the city council was sworn to uphold, he said.
He said the ordinance needs a thorough legal and constitutional review to ensure it aligns with First Amendment protections.
“Additionally, we need to hear from stakeholders, including community members and legal experts, to make sure it’s addressing real problems without unintended consequences,” Bauman said.
He said the proposal diverges significantly from the original Anti Defamation League model ordinances it was said to copy. When he spoke with ADL representatives, Bauman said they were surprised that they had not been contacted by the city and given a chance to attend the meeting to join the discussion.
Several council members said that the agenda memo said the proposal would address people leaving unwanted literature in large sections of neighborhoods, including antisemitic messages. However, they said the ordinance amendment proposal does not address it.
