[Ghostavo]

There are laws against noise in public places.
This example is even worse since the noise's intent is to disturb.

Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet.

I can go out and read the Bible in a loud squeaky voice and I doubt I will get arrested.

Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.

If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.

Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.

Here's an example I'm familiar with.

Then again, if the device's noise was heard by everybody how many people would still support it?

Things make noise all the time. Some businesses have loud equipment or play music.

So is the issue the noise or is it the intent to get you to leave?

Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.

Here's something to read about.

[Blue Lion]

I'm sorry, it's just that you always seem to support the side with the power in every argument (not that so-called Liberals don't do that all the time too).

If you mean my stance of "If it's illegal you can't do it. If it's legal you can" then guilty as damn charged.

There are plenty of things I think am morally opposed to but are legal so tough luck for me. Flip side of the coin, some things I think should be legal aren't. I don't just disregard the law and say I think differently.

But my analogy stands. If your neighbor wanted to mow his lawn with a noisy thing so he could mow his lawn, that's one thing. If he wanted to mow his lawn with that mower because it was specifically designed to be extremely painful to your childrens' ears because he hates your children and doesn't want to see them anywhere near his lawn, ever, then what he's doing is wrong, period. This device will be used against teenagers who have committed no crime, and who have made no disruption.

Except that's a different argument than "We can't assemble here".

The harassment argument has some legs. Haven't really looked at the harassment laws but I dunno.

But the whole "we can't stand there" argument kinda falls apart because you CAN stand there.

As an example, if they are out on the streets fixing curbs or something and running a jackhammer, me standing there yelling for them to turn it off won't fly. Jackhammers are loud and can cause permanent hearing loss without protection.

I can't go to the cops and have them stop them because I say if I stand next to them it hurts my ears.

[Blue Lion]

Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.

Aren't these machines designed not to be loud?

If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.

Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.

Here's an example I'm familiar with.

So it's more of me disturbing the peace instead of free assembly. And I can't read that article at all. 

Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.

Here's something to read about.

I hate to say it but you're helping me prove my point. Bring a noise complaint. This is not really a first amendment issue (well it is, in that the shop owners can argue you're infringing their right to make noise in a public place)

One thing the article really doesn't mention it but most noise ordinances are against loud noise. If these objects don't reach that decibel level, then what?

[Mr. Vega]

Oh, they can stand there, they'll just get harassed and police are ok with it because it's their job to treat youth like ****. That's what adult society wants them to do.

It seems like you're all for lip service to free assembly in the law, just not in actual practice, since anyone can disrupt them (and this is with INTENT to disrupt) without facing repercussions worse than a harassment suit in your eyes.

[Mr. Vega]

What if the government used it against nonviolent protesters, would the government still only be guilty of harassment?

[Ghostavo]

Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.

Aren't these machines designed not to be loud?

I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.

If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.

Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.

Here's an example I'm familiar with.

So it's more of me disturbing the peace instead of free assembly. And I can't read that article at all. 

Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?

Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.

Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.

Here's something to read about.

I hate to say it but you're helping me prove my point. Bring a noise complaint. This is not really a first amendment issue (well it is, in that the shop owners can argue you're infringing their right to make noise in a public place)

One thing the article really doesn't mention it but most noise ordinances are against loud noise. If these objects don't reach that decibel level, then what?

I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.

The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.


EDIT:

I seem to have found something interesting.

I can't seem to hear it. Anyone willing to give it a try?

I'm 21 by the way.

[peterv]

Is it the one we are talking about?

[Ghostavo]

I assume so.

[Mars]

That is the most terrible sound I've ever heard in my life 

[tinfoil]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKK KKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

Warning, do not use with headphones


EDIT Unggh!! Speaker make it worse, what is this madness? It's like when you get home from a loud concert and you didn't use earplugs but louder and higher pitched.

[peterv]

It's very interesting that there are people deffending such practices against younger people. Perhaps they should look for the lack of decency, culture and respect elsewere, not to kids.

[Liberator]

Where some people are getting confused is that shops and usually the sales/walk areas in front of them, while publicly accessible, are in fact private property.  You don't go strolling into someone's house you don't know with 20 of your friends and just stand around in his yard?

The shop keeper is well within his rights to remove undesirable people from in and around his establishment.

[Blue Lion]

I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.

It's also illegal to drive "fast" but it depends on the law as to what "fast" is. I really haven't seen a law that says these things are loud enough to constitute a noise complaint.

Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?

Why would it suddenly become bad to do it to old people?

If for example (making this up) a noise ordinance says you can have noises up to 75 db from 7am to 7pm on weekdays (again, made that up) and the device is say 65db... you kinda can't get them on that.

Wait, old people complained? Oh well string the guy up then. An old person complained about something. An event such as this calls for drastic action.

Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.

I can't dismiss something I can't read. I don't even know what it says!

I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.

The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.

You've showed me a law that says they can't do that. If you put one up there, hello legal matters.

But, and it's a pretty big but, these guys at the start of this article didn't argue it as a noise complaint. They argued it as a freedom of assembly issue, which it's not.

Also, no such comparable law has been shown to strike this down. I get the feeling if these laws existed in that area they would be brought up in the article.

[Blue Lion]

And yes I can hear it.

I'm 27.

[Blue Lion]

It seems like you're all for lip service to free assembly in the law, just not in actual practice, since anyone can disrupt them (and this is with INTENT to disrupt) without facing repercussions worse than a harassment suit in your eyes.

First off, you've made an argument I haven't made. I don't recall saying criminal harassment was ok cause they're kids. You guys just haven't really proved this is legal harassment.

I'm not well versed in the law of harassment in public places. Maybe you are.

Here's a riddle, if I'm out on a public street and I see a couple walking by and I say "Hey buddy, you're ugly. I can't believe she dates you. Her, however, I would love to play her boobs like bongo drums"

Public place? Check

Disturbing someone? Check

Criminal act? Dunno, you tell me.

Secondly, freedom of assembly doesn't automatically exist everywhere. Try going to a public park or school at night and try to argue freedom of assembly.

[Ghostavo]

I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.

It's also illegal to drive "fast" but it depends on the law as to what "fast" is. I really haven't seen a law that says these things are loud enough to constitute a noise complaint.

You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!

Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?

Why would it suddenly become bad to do it to old people?

If for example (making this up) a noise ordinance says you can have noises up to 75 db from 7am to 7pm on weekdays (again, made that up) and the device is say 65db... you kinda can't get them on that.

Wait, old people complained? Oh well string the guy up then. An old person complained about something. An event such as this calls for drastic action.

I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.

Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.

I can't dismiss something I can't read. I don't even know what it says!

Well, you can dismiss it anyhow.   If you can't read it, it's worthless in this argument.

I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.

The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.

You've showed me a law that says they can't do that. If you put one up there, hello legal matters.

But, and it's a pretty big but, these guys at the start of this article didn't argue it as a noise complaint. They argued it as a freedom of assembly issue, which it's not.

Also, no such comparable law has been shown to strike this down. I get the feeling if these laws existed in that area they would be brought up in the article.

Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago.  

Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.

[Ford Prefect]

It's very interesting that there are people deffenting such practices against younger people. Perhaps they should look for the lack of decency, culture and respect elsewere, not to kids.

"Lack of decency, culture and respect" is a brand of meaningless horse**** in the same general family as "the world is ****ed" and "Hooters actually has really good wings." It's just something people say because it gets said so much that everyone forgets it's just vapid sophistry. Young people are an easy object of scorn for anyone who seeks the intoxicating sense of superiority that comes from hating something, so no one complains when society gets its panties in a bunch about the young people and their degenerate behavior.

[TrashMan]

Arrrgh those damn kids!

"Oh, I like freedom.
I just only want it for people who don't do things I hate.
Like stand in front of a building."

More like loitering, beating people up, getting drunk and making trouble, throwing things at passerbys, destroying public property...things like that.

Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....

Seriously, do you even think before you post?

Yes, why you ask? Such a strange thing to do for you?

This thing has a limited range. It's used to disperse  troublemakers in a small area. Somehow, people are thinking that young people world-wide will cover  when one of these things go off. There are other methods of getting people that bother you off your property, but I'd say they are usually more personal and require direct contact. And I bet it's cheaper than hireing a bouncer.
Not exactly sure this is the best way to go about it, but it beats doing nothing.

This device, like any device before it, can be abused.
And indeed, if it is the owner should be punished. By why always assume the worst?

If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.

If a bunch of pricks come into a store, loiter, harass the clientele and refuse to leave, who is harrasing whom?
Yeah, you can call the police, but they have better things to do.
Didn't they invent some sort of precise headache gun a while ago? Wouldn't that be a better than something that has an area effect?

[Ghostavo]

Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....

Seriously, do you even think before you post?

Yes, why you ask? Such a strange thing to do for you?

This thing has a limited range. It's used to disperse  troublemakers in a small area. Somehow, people are thinking that young people world-wide will cover  when one of these things go off. There are other methods of getting people that bother you off your property, but I'd say they are usually more personal and require direct contact. And I bet it's cheaper than hireing a bouncer.
Not exactly sure this is the best way to go about it, but it beats doing nothing.

This device, like any device before it, can be abused.
And indeed, if it is the owner should be punished. By why always assume the worst?

Again, are you people even reading the article? The devices emit noise OUTSIDE the buildings into the street. There's no noise inside, only outside. And it doesn't distinguish between people. And since I doubt there's a 24 hour a day present mob outside the store, what's the point of it?

Seriously...

If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.

If a bunch of pricks come into a store, loiter, harass the clientele and refuse to leave, who is harrasing whom?
Yeah, you can call the police, but they have better things to do.
Didn't they invent some sort of precise headache gun a while ago? Wouldn't that be a better than something that has an area effect?

Again, where are you coming up with this? Even if that were true what's the device going to do? Attract them inside since the noise is only outside the story?

[Blue Lion]

You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!

First off I'm not sure you can get arrested for making noise. Maybe you can. I have no idea. Just a fine? I dunno.

Secondly, I never said you couldn't get arrested for making noise.

You said there were noise ordinance laws and I said "not all noise" ("Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet." was the exact quote)

No one has yet shown me these things reach the level of that area's noise laws.

I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.

If it's a legal noise, it's a legal noise.

This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.

Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago.  

Just thought of something. It said permanent. If they turn it on and off for business hours, is it permanent?

To me permanent would be "all the time", and if it's not on "all the time"... maybe that law doesn't apply.

Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.

There is nothing wrong with the argument. There are just two issues.

1. There needs to be proof an ordinance exists in that area.

2. There needs to be proof these stores violate it.

And unfortunately, because there are groups against these things, I think they would have checked noise ordinances first. I'm not saying there aren't but the article seemed very "uh.... we're not sure what to do"