I’m look for something either way on the idea that loud noises or offensive pictures enter the mind by force.
I’m not sure how this would apply to viewing a picture, but if someone is making loud noises, then the sound waves that they are creating are being pushed into your ear and vibrating your eardrum. Can this be viewed as an act of aggression, a property boundary invasion, if the noise is unwelcome? And if so, can it be retaliated against with aggression?
Do images enter the mind in the same way? Are our thoughts forcefully changed by the sudden appearence of a picture in front of our eyes? Can this too be considered aggression if the picture is unwelcome?
If you are in a movie theater, then you implicitly consent to having you’re eardrums vibrated. However, you (presumably) have not consented to having you’re eardrums ruptured. So, the point is that if you are on someone else’s property, then you have implicitly consented to having your earndrums vibrated to a certain extent. Your question reminds me of the lifeboat situation, where property rights have been ill-defined. In other words, how would we know who should be kicked of the lifeboat if we don’t know who owns the lifeboat?
Sound or noise are indeed physical aggression, and very painful aggression indeed. I have no doubt that you should be able to retaliate by physical force on a guy who aggression by noise. Of course there’s some leeway in deciding where does aggression being, but the solution will have to be found on the arbitration market. We can’t come up with the answer now.
Pictures, on the other hand, are different. No one can force you to see something. Now, if a guy is beaming your house with some huge light beam, that’s aggression. But simply having , say, a huge poster of a nude woman up on one’s roof is not physical aggression. To the extent that such acts will be both widespread and offensive, property will have to expand to keep things such as this from happening.
In my neighborhood noise doesn’t simply push against your eardrums, it vibrates the walls, floor, dishes, internal organs. As I write, there’s a car stereo “drag race” going on in the park across the street. Last week I called the cops and they left. This occurs every Sunday.
Noise is an aggressive act. After years of being boomed around my house, I filed a complaint against my neighbors. I didn’t want to do it, but I just couldn’t take it anymore. My neighbors of course consider that an act of aggression. Tough!
I’d rather have a messy yard, garish paint on a house, bad art in a yard, than thumping stereos any day. It affects mood, thought, perhaps even physical health. The booming is like having somebody outside your home pounding on the walls. It’s even difficut writing this with all that racket going on. My thoughts are jumbled.
I hadn’t ever thought about this before, but I tend to agree with the theme here. I think noise past a certainly decibel level can be considered aggression. It can cause physical movement of objects (as described above) and even irreversable physical harm. It is even used as a weapon (even in a protective nature).
But bear in mind I’m not of the impression that the content of the sound can be taken into much consideration (if any at all…again, haven’t ever thought about this), but rather just the volume. Simply claiming a noise or something someone said can be an act of aggression I think is an open policy for individual rights violation.
Visuals…such as pictures, I do not really believe could be considered aggressive. Perhaps in rare circumstances, maybe in the instance of a child who may actually experience some psychological harm from a visual…but by and large I consider it along the same lines as judging the content of audio. I do not agree that there is a very strong case to be made that aggression has taken place based on how something made you feel (which is what I presume “entering the mind” implies).
I agree that will resolve most disputes, but that doesn’t mean noise couldn’t be used aggressively. As I stated above, it can literally be used as a weapon and cause physical damage to person and property. Just because you moved on to your lot before I moved in next door, doesn’t mean you have the right to burst my eardrum and break my glass.
Thanks for that link. While I don’t agree that the matter is simply settled with who was there first, I was here first.
Again, regarding my neighbors, I would calmly tell them that I was calling the police. I called the police around 100 times regarding those car stereos. They would say they didn’t care, and pump the volume up even more. Clearly an aggressive act. After finally signing a complaint, they threw their hissy fits by blasting their stereo in short bursts. Not only aggressive, but an attempt to harrass and intimidate a victim/witness.
This is an urban neighborhood. I have a major freeway interchange in my backyard. No problem. I hear trains. No problem. Sirens, ok. I do hate the police helicopters.
Along the same lines of noise here, I also live a mile south of an NFL football stadium. Before a home game, Air Force jets fly directly over my house to make a flyby at the stadium before kickoff. One day those jets flew so low that I actually went down to my knees in pain. My poor dogs. Several emails were sent afterwards and they haven’t flown that low since.
I think the issue must be whether the noise itself was there before you moved in - i.e. if there was a nightclub, factory or shooting range next door before you moved in, you can’t really complain about the constant and predictable noise after you do.
On the other hand, it can’t simply be that you move in next to someone, and they start with weird and destructive noises because they don’t like you, using the excuse that they moved in first. You do raise a valid point in that sound waves can technically be used as a very destructive weapon.
At any rate, they certainly can’t complain about noise you make, due to estoppel.
Practically speaking, homeowner’s associations would continue to have the legitimate authority to self-regulate this sort of thing in the communities their members own, I would imagine.