techwhiz140

holysocks

yes i'm a bum....

KRONK370

GiantEnemyCrab

GiantEnemyCrab

Ethnicity specific repellent may not actually be that far fetched. DARPA already actively develops pain rays and ethnicity specific biological weapons are probably much closer to reality than we would like to think.

Bloodboiler

crazy0000

Problem solved.

cleary6

banmojo

videoCWK

[www.hornblasters.com]

johnnyabnormal

*Bang!*

*BzzzzZzzzzzzzz.....*

johnnyabnormal

People should just hang out there longer to prove a point.

kylo4

Darkest Daze

Con Seannery

92BuickLeSabre

And for the record, I'm 28 and I can hear these just fine. In fact, the 22khz signal, which is only supposed to be audible to people 18 and younger, I can not only hear, but it actually hurts my ears.

Check yourself here: [www.freemosquitoringtones.org]

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Jawdy

92BuickLeSabre

AqueousBeef

We seem to be largely lacking in perspective on this, but it is good to know so many hate our elders. Many stores now have signs out reading "No walkers, wheelchairs or Rascals allowed."

GadgetPlay

1. Gas station installs Mosquito
2. Annoying kids go away
3. Slightly more people come to asshole-free gas station
4. Everyone under 30 or with kids notices noise, leaves
5. Half the employees leave because they can hear it
6. ?????
7. PROFIT!!!

Ethan Allison

techwhiz140

techwhiz140

GeekGoth

gtpooh

It's impossible to have a conversation with Riff about the war council if Doc has Kenny G or Kirk Whalum blaring on the jukebox. It's just the wrong mood all together.

donlphi

In NYC our human rights law extends further, for example, to cover sexual orientation and, in the employment context, to a refusal to hire based on a criminal record (although there are broad exceptions based on connection to the particular job and/or a threat to safety and security.)

Not to go too far afield, I only bring it up to agree with your point and clarify that my answer was purely based on the question of what is illegal discrimination under the law generally, not under right/wrong or what is or isn't possible in any particular city or state.

92BuickLeSabre

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

I still think we should just beat the crap out of the device.

shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog

It really annoys me so i'll be staying away from places that use it.

mrlokievil

You can outgrow being a teenager. You don't grow up to be a white person (unless you're Michael Jackson).

xcharliemx

qella46021

BasicBlack

Set to evil

Wouldn't it be easier to play something like Celine Dion through normal speaker.

DeadWriter

erebusrat

kahri

They do the same thing in fast food establishments.

mrAnderson

Just because something is not yet covered in the Constitution or the law doesn't make it automatically correct. Nothing's actually illegal, or unconstitutional, after all, until someone makes it so.

Pope John Peeps II

So. This delinquency thing obviously has a genetic component. You will make an interesting subject.

BasicBlack

Tush

utube2007

That douche thing is kind of your signature isn't it? That said, I agree in spirit. If you're not wanted anywhere, you'll congregate somewhere.

If someone is creating a nuisance, you summon the appropriate authorities. You don't subject them to technology that has likely only been "safety tested" by the manufacturer.

How could it possibly hurt someone? That is what they always say before it hurts someone.

Now get the fuck off my lawn.

BasicBlack

@dosguy...yes...cell phone jammers...I want one that allows them to put the phone up to their ears...and then it explodes when they try to talk...yeah...

ChowderFacial

johnnyabnormal

SgtMac02

1) It's not "Is this basis rational" it's "Is there any possible rational basis for this." So it's not like the judges get to decide for themselves whether they agree with the law.

2) What classifications are more scrutinized than others doesn't merely come out of the air. It's rooted in the post-civil war Constitutional Amendments and in the Civil Rights Acts. The CRA of 1964, for example, uses the language of "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" again and again. It says nothing about discrimination based on age, etc.

92BuickLeSabre

Joseph

AmishJohn

Likely between 14,000 Hz and 18,000 Hz

flame500

2: Is there somewhere online where I could actually (try to) hear an example of the sound it makes? I'm really curious to (not) hear what it is like.

SgtMac02

ecobore

sayten

johnnyabnormal

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

johnnyabnormal

First of all race, religion, gender - those are all given closer scrutiny. Your example, based on race, wouldn't be looked at under merely a rational basis test. It would be strict scrutiny, which requires a "compelling" government interest (for example, national security), the law must be "narrowly tailored" and be the "least restrictive" means. It is virtually impossible to pass a law discriminating based on race and pass this test. (Gender, is subject to an intermediate scrutiny, but it's still very strict.)

Second, the prejudice would have to have some basis (but only some basis.) If the state could show that teenagers contributed to x% of their problems and so this was about property rights or security or whatever (and not merely that they hated teenagers) it would likely be enough. They might not even need real statistics. An anecdotal basis might be sufficient.

Rational basis is a very, very low bar. If you want to see what failing a rational basis test looks like, look at Romer v. Evans. (One of the very few examples.) Actually just the wikipedia entry for it gives you enough info. There the court struck down a law because:

"Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

So the court found absolutely now possible basis for the law except for the prejudice (animus) alone.

So a law banning blue-eyed people from particular places would likely fail even a rational basis analysis because it would be virtually impossible to come up with any valid reason that blue-eyed people should be treated differently, except that one happened to not like blue-eyed people.

Hope that helps!

92BuickLeSabre

markarian

"If we can discriminate against younger folks like this can we also discriminate against older folks by taking away their drivers liscense at 70?"

As a 60-something driver, I'm all in favor of retesting seniors after they reach a certain age, and then increasing the frequency of retesting as they age. We have 90-year-olds who can barely walk or see driving around in SUVs because their driver's license, which was issued in the 1930s, based on their ability to maneuver a 2-door coupe with manual transmission, is still valid.

dosguy

Can you create a rational argument based on a prejudice? I mean, if I can claim that theft, vandalism, and harassment occurs only because of teenagers, why is it irrational to say that theft, vandalism, and harrassment only occur because of black people? The argument is essentially the same for both, and yet one is considered rational?

Again, I'd like an actual answer because I don't doubt that the minutia of the law has drawn a distinction in here somewhere.

Darrone

Some people never learn, but that doesn't mean you should give up on teaching them.

Killjoy

Joetimek

Needadrink

Needadrink

Captain Angry

Reducing customer harassment, vandalism, etc is a rational basis. Dislike of wrinkly skin and grumpiness is likely not. (Not rational in a legal sense. Completely rational in a common sense.)

Age is actually not a protected class at a constitutional level. There are particular statutes protecting against age discrimination in the workplace, and enforced by the EEOC, but they do not cover anyone under 40.

92BuickLeSabre

Needadrink

If we can discriminate against younger folks like this can we also discriminate against older folks by taking away their drivers liscense at 70?

Posavoie

jabber

That'd teach 'em.

scarbrtj

On a side note, I'm disappointed they're note using the "brown" tone. Don't give me any of that Mythbusters crap. I believe.

BasicBlack

Pope John Peeps II

Of course cranking up music is probably why I have bad hearing. That and jackhammers. Lots of jackhammers.

Castle1914

dosguy

I can't believe that a law suit against these wouldn't succeed brilliantly.

Pope John Peeps II

The problem is they have nothing to do all day but write letters to their senator about the 2 cent tax on Metamucil when we regular people are paying 5 dollars for gas and 7 dollar tolls.

Darrone

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog

pferde_schwanz

What if someone actually gets hearing damage or something from this? Think we'll see a lawsuit?

niemassacre

VERY good point!

Speaking as someone in their mid-30's with good hearing, this would bug the crap put of me. I did read an article about a shop owner using one to get "gang members" from hanging out by his store.

Dunno how I feel about this thing. Seems you could eliminate annoying the wrong people and get the dinks wearing headphones if you just waved a pistol at them. Or asked them to leave. Either one.

Oldbrass

shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog

brutek

This will be equal to calling the cops, ultimately pointless.

Darrone

People listening to headphones will not hear it at all.

brutek

Joseph