Chuck's back!
Everyone's favorite right-wing blog baiter Chuck Jones sues the Athens-Clarke County Commission over ... the noise ordinance. Apparently two students from the University of Georgia are complaining that it's not fair to be able to party loudly all night, so they've enlisted Jones's help in striking down an ordinance that is, well, accepted and employed in communities throughout the country.
So, what's the word on legality of noise ordinances? Well, a quick glance reveals that many courts say they're perfectly legal.
In New York, a challenge against its constitutionality was rejected. We find the same thing in Columbus Ohio and also in Cleveland. In the first and final instances, the courts ruled the ordinances were 'content neutral' in that they didn't discriminate against a particular type of noise.
Now, based on the article, it appears that Jones is building his argument around the level of enforcement in certain areas - a louder downtown compared to a quieter neighborhood. This appears to be the only aspect of his lawsuit where there appears to be some element of a decent argument (i.e. downtown is louder and it is louder later), but the latter part where the lawsuit claims this is a restriction on free speech seems to be a reach to me.
No one is denying someone the right to free speech, just how loud it can be. I mean, Person X can offer an opinion on topic all they want, but they can't do it in a way that is detrimental to the community at large.
I can't comprehend the rationale that the ordinance is unfair because it makes something subject to punishment that doesn't have to be reported to the authorities. Aren't all of our rules and regulations put in place so we don't have to complain about certain things? I mean, if someone punches me in the face, then they've assaulted me and I can contact the police. If I choose not to, then so be it, but it's still against the law and should be subject to a penalty. And, if I want to press charges, I don't have to approach the appropriate law enforcement officials and go above and beyond to prove that it happened. I can go say 'that dude punched me, here's my statement and my black eye' and they'll say 'that's assault' ... not 'well, thanks for that, but I don't know how to classify this thing.'
So, what's the word on legality of noise ordinances? Well, a quick glance reveals that many courts say they're perfectly legal.
In New York, a challenge against its constitutionality was rejected. We find the same thing in Columbus Ohio and also in Cleveland. In the first and final instances, the courts ruled the ordinances were 'content neutral' in that they didn't discriminate against a particular type of noise.
Now, based on the article, it appears that Jones is building his argument around the level of enforcement in certain areas - a louder downtown compared to a quieter neighborhood. This appears to be the only aspect of his lawsuit where there appears to be some element of a decent argument (i.e. downtown is louder and it is louder later), but the latter part where the lawsuit claims this is a restriction on free speech seems to be a reach to me.
No one is denying someone the right to free speech, just how loud it can be. I mean, Person X can offer an opinion on topic all they want, but they can't do it in a way that is detrimental to the community at large.
I can't comprehend the rationale that the ordinance is unfair because it makes something subject to punishment that doesn't have to be reported to the authorities. Aren't all of our rules and regulations put in place so we don't have to complain about certain things? I mean, if someone punches me in the face, then they've assaulted me and I can contact the police. If I choose not to, then so be it, but it's still against the law and should be subject to a penalty. And, if I want to press charges, I don't have to approach the appropriate law enforcement officials and go above and beyond to prove that it happened. I can go say 'that dude punched me, here's my statement and my black eye' and they'll say 'that's assault' ... not 'well, thanks for that, but I don't know how to classify this thing.'
posted by Jmac at 1:52 PM
5 Comments:
You hit the nail on the head. No one is being denied speech. The govt is not regulating content but noise level. Noise ordinances are perfectly constitutional. [And contrary to popular opinion, btw, there are also myriad ways in which govt CAN legally infringe on "free speech" --no yelling "fire" in a theater, for instance.] I hope the county counter-sues for legal costs for such a frivolous lawsuit. This also is probably a good indication of why Chuck should never be on the Commission (I wonder if this is what he was talking about when he said he'd be off line for a bit because he had some things come up).
In general, a failure to enforce is not a reason to invalidate a law. That's been held in numerous cases and in numerous analagous situations. And noise ordinances have been held not to invalidate free speech provisions, either.
No doubt this frivolousness is incredibly time-consuming. It's a full-time job being a pain in the ass.
Well, I also support noise ordinances and break with liertarianism on this topic. (Actually I don't b/c it's a property rights issue, which is perfectly consistent with free speech.) But, it might be nice to hear you guys give more of an argument than simply "that's been ruled on and courts have said that it DOESN'T violate free speech, so it doesn't." I mean, this is a blog. Let's talk about ideas, not just whether the nine in black have already decreed it from on high. We've all heard the list: Courts said Dred Scot was not a person. Courts said that it was okay to intern people simply for being Japanese. etc. etc. etc. We need more than that, don't we?
No yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, eh? But what if there's a fire? :-) Hardy har har, a 'dad' joke. Sorry.
What's there to discuss? Manner, not content is what's stipulated -- that's legal. Furthermore, noise falls under the same general public good category -- it's a long-established legitimate regulation.
I must also confess that I currently have neighbors who make me very grateful for the ordinance. I have two bands living next to me. Luckily they're niceish, but I have called in regarding the noise ordinance twice -- both times when they thought they'd have a bonfire and practice at 2 a.m. with the doors open. Basic assurances to the quiet enjoyment of one's property are not insignificant.
And if Chuck were to be successful, you'd probably find me in front of his house with a drum kit within the hour.
No yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, eh? But what if there's a fire? :-) Hardy har har, a 'dad' joke.
If there's a fire then you're not breaking the law --it's only if there's no fire and you yell that you are :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home