Personally, I like to leave a boombox blaring rap just lying around the sidewalk. Old people will just crowd around it yelling about "kids today" and "corrupting the youth" and so forth.
I'm optimistic that you can stop being a bigot -- if you agree to turn off the machine and stop using noise to oppress a specific class of people using public infrastructure.
Do you think that youth is a protected class?
What ever happened to calling the police? You just wasted a bunch of money on something that could've been solved by a phone call.
Try getting the police to respond to a nuisance call during Derby week. It won't happen.
It's a false comparison. They have nothing in common. There's nothing about the class of teenagers that gives the the same legal protections as any protected class. It's like saying, "How would you feel if your device hurt little ponies?"
It's a false comparison. They have nothing in common. There's nothing about the class of teenagers that gives the the same legal protections as any protected class. It's like saying, "How would you feel if your device hurt little ponies?"
Are they not humans? What ever happened to "All men are created equal?"
They do have something in common -- they are both subsets of the American citizenry. They are both protected by equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
So would you feel the same if the noise only affection people ages 30-50?
Forget about the fact that it even targets a specific subset. What if everyone could hear the sound, would that make it somehow ok? Is it ok for me to go around the street with an air horn hurting people's ears? It's either ok to do it to everyone, or it's not ok to do it to anyone.
They are both protected by equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Everyone is protected by the 14th Amendment. Everyone belongs to some subset of citizenry. If that's the only thing they have in common it's not much. It's like you were saying scientists and baptist preachers had something in common.
Notice that the group of teenagers does not have immutable characteristics. One always grows out of the class. The class doesn't share a history of discrimination. In fact, I'd say that it has a history of privilege. The group is not politically impotent and it is not a discrete and insular minority. Therefore, it's not a protected class.
Notice who the group of teenagers does not have immutable characteristics. One always grows out of the class. The class doesn't share a history of discrimination. In fact, I'd say that it has a history of privilege. The group is not politically impotent and it is not a discrete and insular minority.
The only recognized protected classes are women and minorities.
Yes, this is legally correct. But I'm not asking you about legality. I'm asking about morality. Is it right?
Here is the real issue, he wants to play a specific frequency really loud outside. I guess it really boils down to the specific noise ordinances where he lives.
Here is the real issue, he wants to play a specific frequency really loud outside. I guess it really boils down to the specific noise ordinances where he lives.
Dude is a lawyer. You have to attack with the moral argument. The legal argument will never win.
Except that legally, people of different ages ARE protected. Look at the Age Discrimination Employment Act. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 protects teens against discrimination in any government or government-funded program or context.
If you're going to argue that only explicitly protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be guaranteed civil liberty, then gay and lesbian Americans aren't explicitly protected, either. But you can't discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or in criminal law. So why should teenagers be the exception?
And it still really bothers me that you first defense was that this form of discrimination was okay because teens can't do anything legally to protect themselves anyway.
Everyone is protected by the 14th Amendment. Everyone belongs to some subset of citizenry. If that's the only thing they have in common it's not much. It's like you were saying scientists and baptist preachers had something in common.
They do have something in common. I would be just as wrathful about this if the device only affected baptist preachers. Singling out any one given kind of people with the Mosquito would be evil -- no matter who the people are. If you endorse it, then I think you're evil, too.
Dude is a lawyer. You have to attack with the moral argument. The legal argument will never win.
Hey, if he wants to play some noise really loud, fine so be it. I have no issue as long as he is within the boundaries of the law. What you guys are trying to argue is that this specific frequency is somehow immoral because it's descriminates. You guys will never win.
The frequency isn't immoral. Using the frequency to irritate anyone -- anyone at all -- enough to drive them away from public property is immoral. That it's targeting a specific group of people and that he finds such joy and justification in it only adds to my opinion that Joe is a bigot.
The frequency isn't immoral. Using the frequency to irritate anyone -- anyone at all -- enough to drive them away from public property is immoral. That it's targeting a specific group of people and that he finds such joy and justification in it only adds to my opinion that Joe is a bigot.
I don't disagree with you. You're got-damn right he's a bigot. But if he is within the noise ordinances of his area, then he has a right to be a bigot in this manner.
Here is the real issue, he wants to play a specific frequency really loud outside. I guess it really boils down to the specific noise ordinances where he lives.
The way I understand the machine to work, the noise doesn't have to be really loud. Most people would only hear some chirping.
Except that legally, people of different ages ARE protected. Look at the Age Discrimination Employment Act. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 protects teens against discrimination in any government or government-funded program or context.
If you're going to argue that only explicitly protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be guaranteed civil liberty, then gay and lesbian Americans aren't explicitly protected, either. But you can't discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or in criminal law. So why should teenagers be the exception?
And it still really bothers me that you first defense was that this form of discrimination was okay because teens can't do anything legally to protect themselves anyway.
You were the one who started us down this road by comparing Teenage Americans to African Americans. I said that the comparison is false. I never said that "only explicitly protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be guaranteed civil liberty".
Here's the big difference between teenagers and protected minorities: People inevitably shed their status as teenagers. That status is not immutable.
Time to play devils advocate (the devil being HungryJoe in this case). I think Joe has a very moral case for this action. To my understanding these kids are causing a disturbance that would be considered a nuisance under the law, but will not be prosecuted by cops due to the fact that it’s impractical/no one cares. Also, the law is not ridiculous. People shouldn’t be allowed to roam streets at night keeping everyone in the neighborhood awake. Shouldn’t HungryJoe be allowed to take some form of action to stop the offending people given that the law system set up to deal with the case can not or will not deal with it You cant handicap people from protecting thear rights when others infringe on them as long as they don’t use excessive force. Just as with self defense, you’re allowed to run away or fend of your attacker. Here I don’t believe the noise machine is excessive force. This machine is not damaging the children, just making them go away. Now, if Joe keeps this machine on all hours of the day even when no one is causing any excessive noise then id have a problem with this
I have every confidence in the world that when it goes to court, the civil liberties of teenagers will be upheld and the Mosquito's use will be ruled unconstitutional.
Time to play devils advocate (the devil being HungryJoe in this case). I think Joe has a very moral case for these actions.
Yes. The punk kids cause noise that keeps us awake. We have asked them nicely to leave us alone. They won't. One time, we called the cops. We told the kids the cops were on their way, and they left. The next day we found dog crap smeared all over our front door. That night, the kids returned and were just as loud as ever.
These kids, these oppressed little darlings that Jason loves so much, have threatened to kill our dogs. They've threatened to burn our house down. They've threatened to hurt us. Carole is going to be alone in that house next weekend and she wants to use the machine to keep the little dears away. I don't see any problem with that at all.
I have every confidence in the world that when it goes to court, the civil liberties of teenagers will be upheld and the Mosquito's use will be ruled unconstitutional.
I'm glad you have that confidence. Mind telling me where the state action is? Mind telling me how it will get to court?
So Joe, I have a case for you. I want you to represent me. My neighbor is using a machine that emits a noise that only people ages 25-32 can hear. We live right next to a public park and the noise extends out into the park. The noise is so annoying that I can no longer go to the park without severe aggravation. Do we have a case against my neighbor?
Comments
Personally, I like to leave a boombox blaring rap just lying around the sidewalk. Old people will just crowd around it yelling about "kids today" and "corrupting the youth" and so forth.
Gets 'em off the roads, at the very least.
So would you feel the same if the noise only affection people ages 30-50?
Forget about the fact that it even targets a specific subset. What if everyone could hear the sound, would that make it somehow ok? Is it ok for me to go around the street with an air horn hurting people's ears? It's either ok to do it to everyone, or it's not ok to do it to anyone.
Here are the rules for determining whether someone belongs to a suspect class.
Notice that the group of teenagers does not have immutable characteristics. One always grows out of the class. The class doesn't share a history of discrimination. In fact, I'd say that it has a history of privilege. The group is not politically impotent and it is not a discrete and insular minority. Therefore, it's not a protected class.
The only recognized protected classes are women and minorities.
If you're going to argue that only explicitly protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be guaranteed civil liberty, then gay and lesbian Americans aren't explicitly protected, either. But you can't discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or in criminal law. So why should teenagers be the exception?
And it still really bothers me that you first defense was that this form of discrimination was okay because teens can't do anything legally to protect themselves anyway. They do have something in common. I would be just as wrathful about this if the device only affected baptist preachers. Singling out any one given kind of people with the Mosquito would be evil -- no matter who the people are. If you endorse it, then I think you're evil, too.
Here's the big difference between teenagers and protected minorities: People inevitably shed their status as teenagers. That status is not immutable.
These kids, these oppressed little darlings that Jason loves so much, have threatened to kill our dogs. They've threatened to burn our house down. They've threatened to hurt us. Carole is going to be alone in that house next weekend and she wants to use the machine to keep the little dears away. I don't see any problem with that at all. I'm glad you have that confidence. Mind telling me where the state action is? Mind telling me how it will get to court?
So Joe, I have a case for you. I want you to represent me. My neighbor is using a machine that emits a noise that only people ages 25-32 can hear. We live right next to a public park and the noise extends out into the park. The noise is so annoying that I can no longer go to the park without severe aggravation. Do we have a case against my neighbor?