Bullock Texas State History Museum
Loud Music Invades Privacy
RECEIVED Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
Dear Editor,
I'm disappointed by your statement that current proposals to reduce city decibel levels are attempts by "the morality police" to "impose our morality on others" [“Page Two,” Nov. 9]. You compare the noise ordinance, which has reduced acceptable levels of live music to heavy-traffic decibel levels, to the no-smoking ordinance that "was passed when only 200 or so Austin businesses could legally allow smoking, and smoking was already banned in hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses."
Yet the difference is significant. People have a choice about whether to patronize or avoid smoker-friendly businesses. But people have no choice if loud music is assaulting their ears. Your right to blast your music ends where my ears begin – just as your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. No one would question that you should not have any right to dump filthy garbage on another person's front lawn, and yet you defend the right to do precisely the same with noise pollution – that is, to have it dumped right in front of the unwanted listener's ears.
As you say, you "sympathize with those complaining – but not much." That is all too obvious, and it betrays both a discouraging insensitivity to those who differ from you and an all-too-ready willingness to invade their privacy for your own enjoyment.
I'm disappointed by your statement that current proposals to reduce city decibel levels are attempts by "the morality police" to "impose our morality on others" [“Page Two,” Nov. 9]. You compare the noise ordinance, which has reduced acceptable levels of live music to heavy-traffic decibel levels, to the no-smoking ordinance that "was passed when only 200 or so Austin businesses could legally allow smoking, and smoking was already banned in hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses."
Yet the difference is significant. People have a choice about whether to patronize or avoid smoker-friendly businesses. But people have no choice if loud music is assaulting their ears. Your right to blast your music ends where my ears begin – just as your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. No one would question that you should not have any right to dump filthy garbage on another person's front lawn, and yet you defend the right to do precisely the same with noise pollution – that is, to have it dumped right in front of the unwanted listener's ears.
As you say, you "sympathize with those complaining – but not much." That is all too obvious, and it betrays both a discouraging insensitivity to those who differ from you and an all-too-ready willingness to invade their privacy for your own enjoyment.
Sincerely,
John Rodden
John Rodden
[Louis Black replies: The city constantly brags on its live-music scene. The scene generates an enormous amount of revenue and serves as a major tourist draw. This has nothing to do with my "enjoyment" but with the wish that given the city talks the talk, it would be nice to see them walk the walk. The comparison is that the city regularly passes laws with the best intentions that are clearly not in the best interests of the live music scene. There is actually little they can really do to help live music, but they could at least let the clubs that support it feel less harassed.]
