A funny aside. Many years ago I represented a southern California beach city in an appeal challenging its anti-barking ordinance. The offended dog owner who brought the suit claimed that the ordinance was void for vagueness because it barred barking that was "audible" at the property line after 10pm. He wanted greater clarity by use of a decibel level. We beat back that challenge when we pointed out that the court's own rule against cell phones and pagers in the courtroom used the same word: "audible."
More interesting was the plaintiff's claim that the ordinance was overbroad. Apparently, he thought the ordinance was having a chilling effect on his dog's speech!! Fun case -- my very first appellate argument, in fact. I have had great fun with the story in the years since. John Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Leigh Armstrong Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 8:15 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision How about an ordnance that prohibited noise above 65 dba (or any other number) at the property line? Generally applicable and can be measured irrespective of content. I think Glendora CA had a similar ordnance. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On May 14, 2004, at 7:51 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
