. . . "Playing or permitting the playing of any radio, television, musical instrument or similar device, whether amplified or not amplified, or amplifying the human voice in such a manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort and repose of a reasonable person in any type of residence or place of business . . . "
This ordinance language answers nothing, because it is ambiguous and arbitrary . . ie, who is to say who is the fabled 'reasonable' person?
Further, the ordinance language does not proscribe ALL noise - rather, it forbids only noise at such a 'manner' or 'volume' (etc) that would bother a 'reasonable' person. This presumes that some level of sound must be expected to be tolerated by the hearer; the language does not lend itself to being able to demand total silence as the only standard that meets the test of the ordinance - if it did mean that, then the word 'reasonable' would be surplusage. Thus, merely showing that someone can hear some music is not, in and of itself, violative of the ordinance; just as we can't forbid birds singing, mowers mowing, golfers talking and laughing, etc.
|