Tired of explosions and adult ‘figurines', Orange County hones in on nuisance law changes
'This is what our January looked like,' she said, indicating the calendar filled with bomb icons. 'Each icon is a bomb that went off. Sometimes it's two or four times a day.'
Shargaa and her neighbors are all united against one man: a resident about half-way down their block who sets off the explosions daily and at all hours.
On Wednesday, his house was also adorned with snowmen making rude gestures and signs comparing his neighbors to donkeys. Neighbors say those decorations replaced large colorful sex toys that used to greet passers-by.
The figurines, they said, can be ignored. The explosions wake everyone up by night and send kids screaming for their parents during the day.
'They don't want to play outside,' Amber Headley said. 'They don't go in the backyard because they're afraid of the fireworks.'
WFTV first reported the nuisance in September and the county's desire to crack down on the man. Five months – and many explosions – later, commissioners say they're close to voting on new ordinances, though it appeared the desired changes by community members weren't part of the package.
'The Orange County Sheriff's Office reported that they sent multiple officers on multiple days to the address in question to speak with the homeowner,' a memo from Commissioner Mayra Uribe said. 'OSCO [sic] has stated that they are unable to further address the situation as the launching for the mortars takes place in the backyard behind a privacy fence.'
Another issue to be addressed, Uribe's memo said, was the fact that the mortars were launched randomly.
In Florida, launching fireworks outside of the two major holidays associated with them (July 4, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day) is illegal. Uribe and others say loopholes are being exploited.
'I personally have seen four Sheriff cars pull up to his house, bang on his door, and he refuses to come out,' Shargaa said. 'He knows the law or something, it seems to be working in his favor. It's not working in our favor.'
Commissioners were set to debate and potentially vote on a proposal Tuesday, but had to pull it because staff needed to double check that it wouldn't have any adverse effects. It could create an opening for additional modifications that can give deputies more enforcement power.
Despite Uribe acknowledging the need to be as careful as possible, neighbors say the last-minute delay left them feeling ignored again.
'We were there five months ago, and the bombs are still coming fast and furious,' Shargaa said.
WFTV briefly spoke to the man, who asked to be left alone, said he was acting within his First Amendment rights and then instructed the news crew to get off his property.
Some neighbors, including Shargaa, said they were considering a lawsuit if the county didn't step in quickly.
'You can express yourself how you see fit, but then you have to understand that does come with a level of respect for you and the people around you,' Brando Wattley said. 'You have to account for these things.'
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows Mississippi to require age verification on social media like Facebook and X
There were no noted dissents from the brief, unsigned order. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that there's a good chance NetChoice will eventually succeed in showing that the law is unconstitutional, but hadn't shown it must be blocked while the lawsuit unfolds. NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. Advertisement A federal judge agreed and Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents and even Advertisement Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices that age verification could help protect young people from 'sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion and more,' activities that Fitch noted are not protected by the First Amendment. NetChoice represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits in Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision 'an unfortunate procedural delay.' 'Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," he said.
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
Justice Kavanaugh just revealed an unfortunate truth about the Supreme Court
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down a very brief order on Thursday, which allows a Mississippi law restricting children's access to social media to remain in place — for now. It is far from clear, however, whether the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice v. Fitch will remain in place for very long. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is ideologically at the center of this very conservative Supreme Court, wrote a concurring opinion explaining that he thinks the law 'would likely violate [social media companies'] First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But he joined the Court's decision nonetheless because the plaintiff in this case, a trade group that represents internet companies, 'has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time.' What is the 'shadow docket'? Kavanaugh's reference to 'the balance of harms and equities' refers to the rule the Supreme Court used to apply in its 'shadow docket' cases, a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. Typically, when the Court grants shadow docket relief, it issues a temporary order that blocks a lower court decision until the case is fully litigated in federal appeals courts and, in some cases, the Supreme Court. In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Court held that, when a litigant asks an appellate court to block a lower court's decision while the case is still ongoing, it is not enough for that litigant to show they are likely to prevail on appeal. To receive shadow docket relief, the litigant must also show that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.' Often, appeals courts must also ask whether blocking the lower court's decision would 'substantially injure' any third parties, or otherwise harm 'the public interest.' Kavanaugh is probably right that the Mississippi law at issue in Netchoice does not irreparably injure anyone. Though the law purports to prevent minors from signing up for social media accounts without their parents' permission, it is fairly toothless. And it is far from clear whether any actual child or teenager has not been able to use a social media site because of the law. (If you want to read more about the law and why it violates the First Amendment, I wrote that piece here.) A special set of rules for Trump Kavanaugh's decision to apply Nken to the Netchoice case is odd, because the Court appears to have abandoned Nken in many of its shadow docket cases. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a pair of dissenting opinions earlier this year, when President Donald Trump seeks a shadow docket order, the Court typically ignores Nken and rules in favor of Trump, regardless of whether he or his administration would be irreparably injured. In Social Security Administration v. AFSCME (2025), for example, the Republican justices ruled that DOGE, the White House office once led by billionaire Elon Musk, may have immediate access to sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration. Notably, however, when a judge asked one of Trump's lawyers what harm the government would experience if DOGE's access to this information were delayed, the lawyer did not name any such harm — saying instead that the Trump administration would 'stand on the record in its current form.' In the Trump administration's brief to the justices in AFSCME, Trump's lawyers did not even attempt to argue that the administration faced irreparable injury without shadow docket relief. That brief devoted only one paragraph to the question of irreparable harm, and it did not identify any injury to the government that could not be unraveled by a future court order. Instead, it complained that the lower court order blocking DOGE's access 'impinges on the President's broad authority.' The First Amendment is (probably) safe Kavanaugh's Fitch opinion is clarifying for two reasons. Last June, the Supreme Court slightly rolled back First Amendment rights, holding that states may require pornographic websites to verify that their users are over age 18. It was unclear after that decision, known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, whether the Court planned to further weaken the First Amendment, or whether Free Speech Coalition was a one-off decision applying solely to porn. Kavanaugh's Fitch concurrence suggests that the First Amendment is safe. To his credit, Kavanaugh has generally voted in favor of free speech, including in cases where Republican lawmakers sought to restrict it.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Judge strikes down key parts of Florida law that led to removal of books from school libraries
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down key parts of a Florida law that helped parents get books they found objectionable removed from public school libraries and classrooms. It is a victory for publishers and authors who had sued after their books were removed. U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza in Orlando said in Wednesday's ruling that the statute's prohibition on material that described sexual conduct was overbroad. Mendoza, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said that the state's interpretation of the 2023 law was unconstitutional. Among the books that had been removed from central Florida schools were classics like Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' Richard Wright's 'Native Son' and Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five.' 'Historically, librarians curate their collections based on their sound discretion not based on decrees from on high,' the judge said. 'There is also evidence that the statute has swept up more non-obscene books than just the ones referenced here.' After the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the law, school officials worried that any sexual content was questionable, a belief that was enforced by new state training that urged librarians to err on the side of caution. Last year, Florida led the nation with 4,500 removals of school books. Under the judge's ruling, schools should revert back to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the test is whether an average person would find the work prurient as a whole; whether it depicts sexual content in an offensive way; and whether the work lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The lawsuit was brought by some of the nation's largest book publishers and some of the authors whose books had been removed from central Florida school libraries, as well as the parents of schoolchildren who tried to access books that were removed. The author plaintiffs included Angie Thomas, author of 'The Hate U Give"; Jodi Picoult, author of 'My Sister's Keeper"; John Green, author of 'The Fault in Our Stars"; and Julia Alvarez, author of 'How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents.' The publisher plaintiffs included Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing and Simon and Schuster.
