Most Western nations see outdoor amplified

Most Western nations see outdoor amplified

Most Western nations see outdoor amplified sound as a nuisance and ban it altogether. For example, they won’t let outdoor restaurants play music outside either.

It’s not an infringement on religious practice because it’s “content neutral”. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re calling someone to prayer or trying to promote the big sale in your retail store - you’re not allowed to use amplified sound outdoors at all. As a parallel, Christian churches do get to ring bells sometimes, but only occasionally and only during daylight hours.

One of the more contentious practices is the use of loudspeaker trucks by American political candidates. There are laws against these too even though it’s clearly a restriction on political speech. Where they are allowed, there are strict limits on volume, when they can be used, and so on.

Time, place, and manner. Those are the three words you need to keep in mind when thinking about free speech expression.

While the question relates to religious freedom (not the right to religious practice), the call to prayer over loudspeakers ultimately comes down to speech and when, where, and how it can be implemented.

Cities get in trouble with this sort of regulation all the time. For example, banning directions to a church (a la 2015’s Reed v Town of Gilbert) was found to be unconstitutional. But banning all such signs regardless of content would not be unconstitutional because it is not content specific.

Similarly, banning amplification of noise in a locality regardless of content still complies with freedom of speech. For this reason many municipalities require permits to perform concerts in parks or broadcast messages in public areas. These regulations are designed to make sure people in the surrounding area do not suffer from noise pollution from a multitude of sources, not just from calls to prayer.

Imagine a city without any such restrictions! The US is very big on competition and if someone hated hearing the call to prayer five times a day they would be allowed to broadcast something else as loudly as they wanted to drown it out! Imagine someone in turn amplifying white noise to drown both of them out! It could go on and on. It’s much better to regulate when all such amplification and broadcasting can be done.

Interestingly, this isn’t just a western nation practice. A few years ago a debate raged in Morocco over banning amplified calls to prayer. Wikipedia article Loudspeakers in mosques points to a similar movement in India in the late 1990s, requiring permits for loudspeakers. And in Michigan the call to prayer has been tolerated but with somecomplaints that ‘call to prayer’ is too loud at times.

Part of an organized society is understanding that some regulation is required for the overwhelming enjoyment of most or all citizens. This pertains to noise (regardless of content) and other concerns.

Personally, having lived in a majority-Muslim country, I find the call to prayer to be a pleasant noise through the day. That said, when you have multiple loudspeakers competing with each other it can be daunting and, ultimately, overwhelming to the senses. Sometimes beautiful, sometimes just harsh noise over a poor sound system, it definitely contributed to the cacophony of sound that impacted quality of life for everyone.

Because the freedoms of one person stop at the freedoms of another.

I personally would not want to hear loud prayers 5 times a day — as little as you want to hear me or someone else blasting techno music 5 times day.

Now you can argue: “But the church bells ring all the time as well!”

And you’d have a point. In many Western societies, the traditional majority religions are privileged over other small religions.

Also, most church bells are melodic and rather background — they are not as disruptive as loud prayers. And most people in Western societies grew up with them — so we’ve gotten used to them.

Lastly, you should ask yourself how many Muslim-majority countries allow building churches that ring their bells all the time. Not that many.

---

Personally, I’d prefer a society that is more secular than most Western societies. Freedom of religion also means the right to be free from religion. To me, this includes:

• No privileges for any religion. Religion is a personally hobby and should not be treated differently than a political conviction or your sailing club. Means: You have every right to do it, but in the context of the law and the freedoms of other people.
• No religious symbols in public service. A judge or a teacher should neither display a Christian cross, nor wear a niqab.
• Religious education at school means to teach people critical thinking towards what their parents or their priest/imam might indoctrinate them with. To maximize the chances that children can make their own decisions once they grow up.

Most communities in the United States have laws that prohibit blaring anything over loudspeakers, without regard to what that is. It doesn’t matter what you’re blaring over the loudspeakers: if your sound emission exceeds certain thresholds established by law, it’s illegal without regard to the purpose or content of the sound emission. The only exception is for sound emissions intended to provide warning of, or direction during, an emergency.

This is what is called a “time, place, or manner” restriction, and because it regulates speech based on the time, place, or manner of that speech, and not its content, it doesn’t infringe upon freedom of speech. And because it’s a “neutral and generally applicable” regulation, it doesn’t infringe on religious freedom, either.

These same rules also prevent Christian churches from blasting their religious services out over loudspeakers. They’ve even sometimes been used to prohibit or limit the ringing of church bells; I’ve read many news stories of churches who have had to dampen their bells due to noise complaints.

Put simply, your religious belief does not give you free license to commit noise pollution.

In any case, I really doubt that Muslims in the day of Mohammed used loudspeakers to issue the call to prayer, that technology not having been invented yet, and thus I do not believe that the use of amplified loudspeakers to issue the call to prayer is actually required by Islamic tradition.