The
old ordinance apparently prohibited "any excessive, unnecessary or
unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys or
disturbs." Easy to see why the imam thought he wasn't
violating that, and why sensitive neighbors thought he was. This is
hardly a neutral ordinance; it is reminiscent of the ordinance struck
down in Coates v. Cincinnati, which made it illegal to conduct yourself
in a manner annoying to persons passing by. Most of the annoyance
being expressed seems to flow more from the content than from the
noise.
We
don't know how loud this is, or how far it can be heard, or how early in
the morning. Maybe it is such a problem that it would have been
regulated independently of its content. But my hunch is that if
that were so, the City Council would not have amended the ordinance to
expressly permit it.
The
underlying legal issue is how strong an interest is required to justify
suppressing speech or a religious practice. I assume that under
Kovacs v. Cooper they could ban all loudspeakers. But they may not
want to live with the consequences of that. It may shut down events
they would like to permit. I don't think they can ban only those
loudspeakers that someone finds annoying.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(voice)
512-471-6988
(fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
