Tougher laws are considered by many as the best way to curb noise pollution and restrict its disturbing effect on people. On the other side, some people believe that such laws are an infringement of freedom of speech and can never really achieve the desired outcome. This essay will discuss both views.
Strict laws would imply fear of creating a noise pollution and in-turn this could have positive effects on society. Firstly, it would be helpful in tackling public nuisance. Nowadays, people turn a blind eye to there sorrrounding and often talk in loud decibels which affects other people. For instance, in public transport many youngsters tend to form group and talk / laugh loudly and use swearing words which affects other co-travellers and their spring offs. In addition, stricter laws would also come in handy where silence is of utmost importance, such as in a library or hospitals, and thus will be helpful for the society.
On the other hand, people believe that speech is most used form of communcation and thus it would not be possible to curb the same by any laws. Firstly such laws are not considered as practical by many as speech is what makes this sociery and any curb on t in he sme will resulttherre opinion, up portive arguments for this. For instance, defining rules for emerrgency cases is not possible as to when a person can speak loudly and when not. Moreover, this law can also be misused as people would not be able to prove their innocense due to lack of evidance.
To conclude, rise in disturbance cases caused by noise from human beings is a cause of concern for society and people need to understand importance of following public etiquette such as talking slowly. Clearly, these manners are long forgotton and public nuisance has become a major problem. Strict laws are considered by many as s good solution for these problems, however other section believes any such law is a violation of freedom.
Tougher
laws
are considered
by
many
as the best way to curb noise pollution and restrict its disturbing effect on
people
. On the
other
side,
some
people
believe that such
laws
are an infringement of freedom of speech and can never
really
achieve the desired outcome. This essay will discuss both views.
Strict
laws
would imply fear of creating a noise pollution and in-turn this could have
positive
effects on society.
Firstly
, it would be helpful in tackling
public
nuisance. Nowadays,
people
turn a blind eye to there
sorrrounding
and
often
talk in loud decibels which affects
other
people
.
For instance
, in
public
transport
many
youngsters tend to form group and talk / laugh
loudly
and
use
swearing words which affects
other
co-travellers
and their spring offs.
In addition
, stricter
laws
would
also
come
in handy where silence is of utmost importance, such as in a library or hospitals, and
thus
will be helpful for the society.
On the
other
hand,
people
believe that speech is most
used
form of
communcation
and
thus
it would not be possible to curb the same by any
laws
.
Firstly
such
laws
are not considered as practical by
many
as speech is what
makes
this
sociery
and any curb on t in he
sme
will
resulttherre
opinion, up
portive
arguments for this.
For instance
, defining
rules
for
emerrgency
cases is not possible as to when a person can speak
loudly
and when not.
Moreover
, this
law
can
also
be misused
as
people
would not be able to prove their
innocense
due to lack of
evidance
.
To conclude
, rise in disturbance cases caused by noise from human beings is a cause of concern for society and
people
need to understand importance of following
public
etiquette such as talking
slowly
.
Clearly
, these manners are long
forgotton
and
public
nuisance has become a major problem. Strict
laws
are considered
by
many
as s
good
solution for these problems,
however
other
section believes any such
law
is a violation of freedom.