On kernel mailing list behavior [LWN.net]

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 6:27 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (guest, #27559)
In reply to: On kernel mailing list behavior by bojan
Parent article: On kernel mailing list behavior

while i agree with everything else you say...your relation of noise laws being somehow extended to common civility (speech, general offensiveness etc) carries no water whatsoever.

to post comments

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 0:10 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (4 responses)

Really curious - why do you think so?

Here is a direct quote for NSW POEO Act (which is the state law where I live):

‘Offensive noise’ is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as being noise:
(a) that, by reason of its level, nature, character or quality, or the time at which it is made or any other circumstances:
(i) is harmful to (or is likely to be harmful to) a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or
(ii) interferes unreasonably with (or is likely to interfere unreasonably with) the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or
(b) that is of a level, nature, character or quality prescribed by the regulations or that is made at a time, or in any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Obviously, there is the harm/regulations bit, but the rest is really about being considerate.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 18:19 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (3 responses)

we do not need to consider by metaphor, extension, or suggestion as to how something like a noise law impacts speech. specific limits of speech and free expression have been tested repeatedly in detail in the supreme court, for exactly this reason - so someone can't come and tell me that a noise ordinance somehow implies a speech limitation.

i can't blare my music at 1am but i can most certainly (for example):

(1) create a private club that bans women

(2) start a camping troop for children that bans gays

(3) refuse to offer even trivial assistance to someone in life-threatening danger near me

all of these examples have been validated by the supreme court, and oddly enough no one suggested that noise ordinances were relevant

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 21, 2013 12:45 UTC (Sun) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link] (2 responses)

I think that 1 and 2 are also legal in France and I see no real reason why this should be illegal (you are free to make a club with whatever stupid rule you want and I am free not going into your stupid club), but 3 isn't legal here, we have "non assistance a personne en danger": we can be charged for not helping someone in danger, this is rarely enforced but the law is there.

discriminations

Posted Jul 21, 2013 14:18 UTC (Sun) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111) [Link] (1 responses)

(2) isn't legal in France either, and gets taken seriously. You'll probably be able to find examples of (1); but the “private club” defence wouldn't hold for commercial operations and is just there to discourage complaints. As far as most scouting activities splitting children by gender, local organisations do accept both genders and give them equal treatment. This is unlike the US situation where there are gender-specific institutions. </sidebar>

discriminations

Posted Jul 23, 2013 14:52 UTC (Tue) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"you'll probably be able to find examples of (1); but the “private club” defence wouldn't hold for commercial operations and is just there to discourage complaints"

Really ? there is no women-only gyms ? or do you mean they are 'illegal' ?

" As far as most scouting activities splitting children by gender, local organisations do accept both genders and give them equal treatment."

Separate but equals... hum.. where did I heard that before ... ? ah! yes.. "Plessy v. Ferguson"