Doug
Some while ago you asked about literature
about responses to the Court’s prayer decisions.
See WK Muir, Law and attitude change: Prayer
in the Public Schools (University of Chicago 1973).I have a copy.
Marc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 9:51 AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision
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
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone
can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
