It would be helpful if the Post covered other Wards and areas where this was an issue. The Council has no business favoring unions over residents.

Hmm, that spot would send a totally different message to the listener if they dubbed in the speech on 8th and H instead of MLK's speech! I can't quote any of it here because of WaPo's comment posting policy.

Seems unfair to me that someone can force me to hear speech at unlimited volume in my own apartment--even during the day. I work at night.

Watching the Council debates on this earlier, labor unions are split on this. It's not fair to say they are all banding together. SEIU actually supports this bill.

A few points of clarification:

* My baby has a right to not be awakened in his own crib inside his own home by someone using an amplifier

* Amplifiers are blaring in other parts of D.C.--not just H Street NE.

* Not all labor groups oppose the bill--SEIU supports residents' right to quiet.

* The bill as amended allows amplifiers to be used 10 dB over the ambient noise. This means they can be TWICE AS LOUD as the existing sound levels.

* Unamplified voices will remain exempt from the noise law. Let's remember the unamplified voice's right to free speech.

Follow the money to understand why Jack Evans, Jim Graham and others favor labor unions over their own residential constituents.

If this sort of free speech is so effective in getting a point across, I wonder why the unions aren't grabbing their bullhorns and screaming in front of the Wilson building to persuade council members to vote their way.

Free speech should be unrestricted in the nations capitol. Instead of supporting this bill as is, the amendment introduced bu Councilmember Evans will strike a good balance and still allow for restrictions in residential areas and at the same time let voices of regular people be heard on the streets of DC. The Kwame Brown amendment is backed by the big industry that doesn't want regular people having a voice on the street.

And for the record, the Metro-Washington labor council voted unanimously to support this campaign.

*The bill as it now stands would restrict free speech by not allowing people to use amplified speech in DC

*The compromise amendment by Jack Evans would make sure that it is quiet in residential areas

*How can the people in the REAL seat of power inside government buildings hear us if we don't have amplifiers? Furthermore, using amplifiers doesn't prevent people from using unamplified sound as well.

* The people with the real money are the corporate interests that would love to see protests shut down in DC

the amendment by jack evans will take care of the H street issue and still let protest happen in commercial areas

I think people need to read up on what Kwame's Amendment Bill 17-177 really says. It calls for an end to any noise about 80 decibels - that is about the sound of a bus passing. There is already a sound ordinance in DC that prohibits high sound levels in residential areas, and requires a permit for protests. Thus, residential areas are already protected. This NEW bill will be making it ILLEGAL to speak about the levels of a bus passing. This may be ok with complacent people, but not with me.

This bill is unconstitutional. People need to understand that this bill has nothing to do with noise, but with free speech. The majority of complaints for noise submitted to the city council were regarding construction - jackhammers, not bullhorns or amplifiers. We need to be clear about what this bill is addressing and not addressing. Construction noise is a problem in neighborhoods, protests are not. If we dont have the right to speak freely in public, then we have lost the first amendment. But you know this bill is not going to be able to stop loud construction noise in the city - so in essense it is only silencing people's voices.

What about nonresidential areas? When you're working in an office near a hotel and have to hear endless repetitious screaming into bullhorns all day about a dispute that has nothing to do with you, it's not unreasonable to want some relief. If the unions want the people to side with them, they might want to consider not intentionally annoying them.

I understand that loud speech can be annoying - but that's the price we pay in this country for our freedom of speech. the point of a picket line is just that - to get attention when there is no other way to change the system. the only way that picket lines will go away is for developers and employers to stop abusing their workforce. the quicker they sign contracts the sooner the picket line will go away. if this bill passes there will be a LOT more noise protesting this bill too!

If you get attention by irritating people, then the attention isn't likely to make people more sympathetic to your side. That's the price you pay for choosing that tactic.

"unions" are residents. unions in DC are big groups of people who work and live in DC. why does nobody understand this? A union is a big bunch of individual people who work together to make their lives better

If this is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, how come it would still be one of the most liberal noise control laws in the country? Councilmembers - especially those seeking reelection (like Evans, Brown, Schwartz, Alexander and Bowser) - need to think about whether they will stand up for their residents and constituents who want peace and quiet, or whether they will kowtow to non-resident union bigwigs.

And has anyone asked the unions how come they hire homeless people at barely minimum wage pay to staff most of these noise protests?

Union members ARE DC residents! Furthermore, the bigwigs are hardly the union members - they are strong because of their strength in numbers and their fighting power, not because of money or connections like big business has.

The Evans amendment WILL allow peace and quiet in residential areas - AND it will allow protest in commercial areas.

I think the union members who turned out in the hundreds today at the DC City council would be very offended if you suggested that they were a) homeless or b) getting paid to be there.

They are there becuse they care about the right to speak and be heard - the only way to ensure contracts that allow people to gain a better life for themselves and their families.

What will Mr. Evan's amendment do?

"I understand that loud speech can be annoying - but that's the price we pay in this country for our freedom of speech."

I'd just like to point out that "freedom of speech" does not literally mean the freedom to unlimited amplification anymore than the "freedom of movement" means the right to tromp through someone else's out-spread picnic blanket with dog crap on your shoes. I would've imagined that even your average union goon (and their gutless cronies on the Council) could understand the distinction.