Re: Question

[Sorrento95 <Sorrento95@xxxxxxx>]

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: "quiet-list@igc.org"
To subscribe, email "majordomo@igc.org" with message "subscribe quiet-list".
For info, send message "info quiet-list" to same.
=============================================================================