June 25, 2007
Protesters Argue Against Amplified Speech
A groups of D.C. residents took over part of Adams Morgan yesterday with the expressed purpose of annoying people with a megaphone. Their point? That what they were doing was really annoying, and should be illegal under District law. Operating under the monikers Quest for Quiet and Free Speech Should Not Mean Forced to Hear, the group protested for the second year in a row (last time in Georgetown) in the hopes of bringing attention to what they feel are the city's lax noise laws, which allow preachers along the H Street corridor and elsewhere in the city to shout their messages through amplifiers.
On its surface, this issue appears to be about residents who are home during the day, many of them with infants, who would like a little more peace and quiet than they currently have. The Times also notes the health and safety factor being played up by the protesters -- seriously loud noise can cause permanent hearing damage. But we can't help but think of some more recent arguments between the religious and the secular in D.C., like the double-parking issue, when we read about this debate. Would these protesters object so strongly to amplified speech if it wasn't mostly hellfire and brimstone? What if it was poetry?
A hearing is scheduled before the D.C. Council on July 9 on a bill, introduced by Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), which proposes to restrict non-commercial free speech to 70 decibels at 50 feet from the noise source. The law currently allows unlimited noncommercial noises from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. It seems somewhat unclear to us how this new law would be enforced, if enacted. Will neighborhood watchdogs be out with decibel meters and measuring tape, ready to report on noise to the police? Knowing this city, we wouldn't be that surprised. Take our poll after the jump and let us know what you think.
Photo by Daniella Zalcman
|
I hope they don't get wind of the city's lax public urination laws.
I tend to doubt the majority of DC residents would be in favor of having e.e. cummings or some Whitman read aloud all day long. This isn't an religion v secularism issue. This is about douche bags ruining the peace in otherwise quiet neighborhoods.
"Will neighborhood watchdogs be out with decibel meters and measuring tape, ready to report on noise to the police?"
You guys must not know Jack McKay... He's an ANC rep in 301 (Mt. Pleasant) and shows up to many of the events in Lamont Plaza with his decibel meter in hand.
Just to be clear- this is NOT a bad thing. Making sure that performers follow the regulations that are part of the US Park Police permit requirements ensures that there will continue to be music in Lamont Plaza.
This is definitely not a religious/secular issue, but it can become a 'religious' debate on the gentrification front in some neighborhoods. In my nrighborhood, for example, even suggesting that something be done about the noise late at night results in a strong rebuking from angry long-time residents who say you should have done your homework about where you were moving into before doing so and then complaining about it. This argument seems to apply to pretty much any complaint one might come up with about the area. Very frustrating.
Evan (above) is right. It goes the same for the double-parking issue. Certain church-goers have tried to paint neighborhood residents who would like parking and safety laws enforced evenly as anti-church, when it wouldn't matter if it was a Martian double-parking--it's dangerous and wrong no matter who is doing it.
I agree with Evan.
Humans are basically good. But, every once in a while, a group of ass-hats make a portion of DC their own personal playground. Current DC laws render residents defenseless in most cases. It's about time that our Council sticks up for our rights to live without being steamrolled by whomeverwantstofuckwithyourday.
If this legislation helps shut up the guys who "preach" on Monday mornings in Farragut square, I'm all for it.
If I have to hear "You have to believe-uh, in the savior-uh, who is coming to save you-uh" I swear I will have to take that megaphone and shove it up that guy's ass.
i (along with almost everyone else it seems) agree with evan.
sommer, if you wanted to know if the group would be opposed to the reading of amplified poetry, why don't you ask them. do some reporting. that's what they pay you the big bucks for, right? :)
This is a TERRIBLE regulation. I work on environmental acoustics all day and let me just say that 70 dba at 50 feet is very very low for amplified speech. Also, this WILL be used as a pretext to shut down political protest. I have been reviewing the regulation for some time. Altho there should be a limit, a distance limit is not the way to go, and instead should be a limit "at a residential property line" this would be much more effective. I will be speaking at the council meeting. This regulation will have lots of unintended consequences should it go through.
I kinda like this restriction in principle, but 70 db does seem kinda low:
www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Maybe it's not the 70db that's the problem, but the 50'?
"...let me just say that 70 dba at 50 feet is very very low for amplified speech."
I think that's the point. In many jurisdictions you need a permit to use an amplifier.
Eric: You need to think about how many thousands of us live in mixed-use developments that aren't simply zoned "residential."
A property line provision should be used instead of the current "50-foot" language.
An enhanced bill also would protect the free speech rights of those unable to afford or otherwise "amplifier-less" against the "amplified-elite."
When I lived in Houston and was more of an activist, I know that you needed a permit to use a megaphone. This wasn't a standing license, but more of a permit to use one at a particular time and place. They were easy to obtain, and I never had problems not getting one because of content -- but they would limit the number of permits given for bullhorns in the same place at the same time. And the process of having to go downtown and fill out the paperwork cut down on their use for everyday street preaching.
Klav's onto something. Both property line and distance could be used. Both might be necessary, given the context.
"Would these protesters object so strongly to amplified speech if it wasn't mostly hellfire and brimstone? What if it was poetry?"
Oh, fer cripes sake. Don't be a fricking tool...
How about restricting megaphones to mostly downtown/mall areas and residential areas by permit only?
To all of you who think this is only a residential issue....have you considered that this megaphone baloney is an assault on the ears of those who have to listen to this garbage, regardless of the location or the content?
I don't care whether it's a speech, mindless ranting, poetry, or reading the phone book, I believe as a citizen, I have a right to walk the city streets without having to resort to earplugs to enjoy my day. I can't tell you how many Monday mornings have been made even more miserable for me simply because some joker from some bullsh*t religious group is bellowing on a bullhorn in Farragut Square about the need for me to change my ways.
Since the proposed legislation apparently still allows folks to get permits for bullhorns on federal parkland, the jerk-off preachers at Farragut Square could continue their aural assault on the city, but at least they'd have the inconvenience of having to go to the Park Service and pay (either in time or in fees) for their boorish behavior. Seems like a fair trade off to me, given how many folks they harass on the sidewalk.
The only bright side to there not being a permitting requirement, I assume, is that counter protests with bullhorns must also be legal. I've seriously considered renting my own bullhorn just to start an amplified shouting match with the loud-mouthed preachers on behalf of all of those who are sick and tired of their ranting. I've also considered sneaking up behind them with one of those compressed air horns a la "jackass", but that would only work once or twice, I bet.
How loud does an automobile have to be before the operator gets a ticket for excessive noise in DC, MD, and VA?
(People, please don't respond with comments about car audio systems with loud subwoofers, okay? I'm talking mufflers here).
It's not just the residents, but businesses along H St, that are suffering from these "preachers." They drive away business. They harass people. And they don't live in the area.
The preaching happens all day on Saturdays. Imagine sitting in your back yard, trying to enjoy your morning coffee, or trying to catch a few extra zzs in your bedroom and having to listen to that racket.
A permit makes so much more sense than a fixed limit on decibel and distance because political rallies in parks need much more amplification than a guy with a megaphone. Having to fill out an simple application stating the justifiable use of the proposed method of amplification sounds more reasonable and less susceptible to unintended consequences. Now if only they would stop the delivery trucks from leaning on their horns every morning in the alley behind my building.
The air into which second-hand noise is emitted and on which it travels is a "commons," a public good. It belongs to no one person or group, but to everyone.
People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property.
On the contrary, they have an obligation to use the commons in ways that are compatible with or do not detract from other uses.
People, businesses, and organizations that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others' use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard.
Although perhaps unknowingly, they nevertheless disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.
Sommer:
Clearly you've never lived close to one of these irritating bastards. If you had, you wouldn't be quite so dismissive in your writing.
No, it wouldn't matter if it were poetry. It sucks no matter what it is.
One person's beautiful poetry is another person's scratchy toilet paper. NOBODY will ever agree on acceptable speech content. It's way too subjective. Get a decibel meter--it can't tell the difference between a jackhammer and Bukowski.
Of course it would still be annoying if it were poetry. It's just that no poet would feel the sense of entitlement required to blast his or her words at the unwilling; they don't even like using big font sizes.
We had this problem where i went to university. Everyone from the fundamentalist preachers to the credit card companies showed up using bullhorns to get your attention. The advantage was that the school said it was an impediment to the activity of the school (you know, learning..) and restricted it to only between noon and 1pm.
It was still annoying but at least it was shortlived and predictable.
Plus when they all show up at noon to one, you can't actually hear any of them.
It's worth noting also that this is NOT a religion issue. Just like double parking on Sundays is not a religion issue.
It's a basic question of how you treat your fellow city dweller.
Simply put, double parking and annoying people with bullhorns is selfish, boorish behavior. I don't care who is doing it.
These bullhorn losers aren't doing this on their block, annoying their neighbors. No. Just like I guarantee you if we went to the suburban neighborhoods of the double-parkers and blocked their driveways they'd suddenly be singing a different tune.
Have both of these groups claimed some sort of special right because they are religious groups? Yes. But that doesn't make those that find their behavior unacceptable religion-haters.
"It's just that no poet would feel the sense of entitlement required to blast his or her words at the unwilling..."
Apparently someone's never heard of Robert Bly or Maya Angelou.
And the difference between Bukowski and a jackhammer isn't even apparent on the page, let alone when both are publicly aired.
Perhaps an even sillier notion: do political protests these days actually do anything? Does literally preaching to the choir somehow make the choir larger or more powerful?
Don't get me wrong: they're great ways to meet lefty chicks and all...