[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
In a message dated 97-12-16 12:58:40 EST, Bob S writes:
> Now, the ACLU
>wasn't overly thrilled with this solution, but it is an effective way to
>solve the problem.
I am very curious about the details of the ACLU's response to
the confiscation of boom car equipment.
I used to be an avid supporter of ACLU, but I am reassessing
my position. If they are in fact trying to justify boom-car noise
in First Amendment terms, then I would have to conclude that
they have gone completely wacko.
To me, the right of free speech is there to protect the audience
-- the receivers of the message. We should be free to choose
to listen or not listen to whatever expression is offered.
Censorship subverts our right to choose the forms of expression
to which we are exposed.
Boom cars also subvert this right, by forcing us to hear that
which aggravates us while inflicting stress and sleep deprivation.
Boom car boys are not engaging in free speech. They are
engaging in noise aggression.
If the ACLU is defending the boom car boys, they have truly
lost their grasp on what free expression is all about.
-- Michael Wright
QUIET-LIST: Internet Mail List and Forum for discussion of Noise Pollution,
Soundscape Awareness, and the Right to Quiet. Email: "email@example.com"
To subscribe, email "firstname.lastname@example.org" with message "subscribe quiet-list".
For info, send message "info quiet-list" to same.
Date Index |