BERKELEY Woman honking mad over citation - She was ticketed for beeping horn to support pickets

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/23/5 | Patrick Hoge

[HiTech RedNeck]

There is no reference in the law to nuisance -- it would purportedly apply if you beeped out in the middle of an empty interstate with nothing but cornfields in sight.

[Bonaparte]

Right. The state legislature wanted to protect empty cornfields from noise. Got it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Until there is a court finding that this is about nuisance, all this legislative speculation doesn't matter.

[Bonaparte]

By the way, why would it be acceptable to "express one's rights" with a car horn in a residential neighborhood but not acceptable to express those rights in a remote rural setting?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Tell it to the judge

[Bonaparte]

But didn't you just say the nuisance factor would kick in if you hit the horn out on a deserted highway in the middle of cornfields?

[FreeKeys]

Have you seen this?:
http://freedomkeys.com/busybodies.htm

[SouthernFreebird]

Thanks, it's a shame that there are far too many busybodies right here on FR where you wouldn't think you'd find them.

[Old Professer]

And it's pretty much always the same ones.

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm with you generally, but here is the relevant part of the article--the honking was "shortly before midnight."

Claiming honking at midnight is political speech is akin to claiming breaking into houses and stealing TVs is rage against the machine. Makes for a nice soundbite but it's complete and utter b.s. You can protest at a time when you're not completely disturbing the peace. Most people are asleep at midnight.

[BillCompton]

OK, what if the signs said "Drop your pants" "Flash your boobs". What if they said "Take a dump in the street? Just exercising first amendment rights!!

What if they were arresting people for displaying signs our of your car window in violation of a Berkeley sign ordinance? Gets a little more hairy. How about disturbing the peace for raising your voice (it might disturb the neighbors)? How about making inappropriate gestures out your car window (thumbs up, bird finger)? What if the car had a loud speaker (megaphones illegal)? What if the loudspeaker had a tone before you started speaking (perhaps a national anthem). What if the tone was generally recognized in our culture to be an expression of support for a political point of view? What if the tone was a horn? Sorry gang. I know there are competing interests here (quiet enjoyment) but it is balanced against the first amendment. We need to interpret speech pretty broadly, in my opinion. Now if you are just an idiot harassing people, then this particular mitigation would not be present.

[whereasandsoforth]

I don't wish to pee on the first amendment right to blow your horn, and I'm not the one who passed the law. The law is law until it is changed or erased from the book. She broke the law by honking her horn in an non-traffic emergency situation. She must pay up or the rule of law is once again a joke. Liberals have to obey laws too, in theory at least.

[JoeGar]

She'd have been shot responding to "honk if you love Jesus".

[Bonaparte]

The principle of ordered liberty requires us to change laws with which we disagree, not to simply violate them. Only when all reasonable legislative and legal remedy has been exhausted, can we dump the tea into Boston harbor. To believe otherwise, is to endorse anarchy.

Personally, I happen to agree with this law. And if you were awakened from sound sleep in your home at midnight by a gaggle of morons leaning on their 110-decibel car horns, you would agree with this law too.

[BillCompton]

The principle of ordered liberty requires us to change laws with which we disagree, not to simply violate them. Only when all reasonable legislative and legal remedy has been exhausted, can we dump the tea into Boston harbor. To believe otherwise, is to endorse anarchy.

I think this totally misreads the American legal system. Laws are challenged via appeals. If there is no action (usually the result of someone violating something) there is no appeal. Legislation works as you describe, but not common law.

Personally, I happen to agree with this law. And if you were awakened from sound sleep in your home at midnight by a gaggle of morons leaning on their 110-decibel car horns, you would agree with this law too.

Is this a right to privacy? There is no such thing. There is nothing in the constitution that protects you from 110 decibel car horns. There is a right to free expression (which speech has been ruled to include numerous times.) The balance is between a locality's right to govern and whether this instance violates the federal right to speech.

[RepoGirl]

You, Sir, are my hero.

Please tell me what his reaction was?

I had a similar experience a few months ago when walking along Venice Beach with my brother. All this left leaning, free the oppressed crap, with every subversive youth movement represented right up until the 80s...

One street vendor, an artist, caught me looking at his 'art' (collages with heavy political themes) and demanded I buy something. After what seemed like ten hours of haggling, I finally asked him, "Do you have anything that's pro-Bush?" He was just sort of stunned, not sure if I was joking, but I was able to make my escape then.

And it all seemed so rigid and constipated and safe. Nothing like a bunch of self-proclaimed non conformists congratulating themselves for how nonconformist and iconoclastic they are. Yawn!

And of course, one common theme connecting them: Bush was evil, leftism was good. We should all embrace the collective.

[subterfuge]

Like I said in another thread today, we're all breaking some law right now most likely. There are already too many laws. Of course that doens't keep us from making a bunch of new ones.

[scott says]

Hero? I don't know about that!, but I'm glad you understood the story. This was back when Reagan was prez, its almost exactly like it is today with W.His reaction? He was too stoned to react. The street hippies/merchants are still on Telegraph Ave doing the same thing. Reminds me of the saying.."the more things change,the more they stay the same." Peace!!!!

[Bonaparte]

"I think this totally misreads the American legal system. Laws are challenged via appeals. If there is no action (usually the result of someone violating something) there is no appeal. Legislation works as you describe, but not common law."

Whoa there, BC! Once again (slowly) -- "Only when all reasonable legislative and legal remedy has been exhaused..." -- that's what I said. I said nothing to deny the operation of the appeals process or the legal validity of common law (which is nothing but laws arising from custom and general legal principle and formalized through case decision).

You are straining at gnats that aren't even there.

"There is nothing in the constitution that protects you from 110 decibel car horns."

Yes. And there is nothing in the constitution about dumping your garbage in the street or keeping 137 starving cattle in your backyard either. The Consitution was not intended to be an interminable laundry list of every possible offense and human option. The 10th Amendment recognizes the right of the states and the people to decide which laws will govern their communities. It emphasizes the limited and enumerated nature of federal power.

Your specious introduction of "privacy" issues is a straw-man. State and local jurisdictions have every right to enact and enforce laws intended to preserve the public order and safeguard individual rights to the use and enjoyment of private property.

Anarchists and Peter Pan libertarians are fond of defining "freedom of speech" as "anything I happen to want to do," regardless of its impact on others. Casually blasting a neighborhood with high decibel noise is no more "free speech" than releasing noxious odors inside a business or tossing pig's blood on a public official or walking naked down a public street.

IOW, there is no constitutionally protected "right" to create a public disturbance or interfere with somebody else's use and enjoyment of their own property.

[Bonaparte]

I know the street vendor you're talking about. He can't smoke marijuana due to respiratory problems. But he is an alcoholic, in addition to being a knee-jerk commie symp and a shameless sponge. And there's more -- back when he first set up his tables by Cody's Books, he was there illegally and got in some screaming altercations. Permission to stay is contingent on his good behavior.