German &quot;Quiet Hours&quot; exceptions I haven't been to Germany but I've heard of the Quiet Hours law. It is required to keep noises at very low levels during "quiet hours" like at night, on Sundays and holidays. However, I'm pretty sure there are also typically noisy festivals and events in Germany. What if some typically noisy events fall on quiet hours? What are some exceptions for the Quiet Hours law?
The "Quiet Hours law" is part of environmental protection laws: it regulates noise immissions. In general, what is allowed differs quite a bit depending on zoning and day vs. night. E.g. in a purely industrial area outdoor noise immission may be up to 70 dB(A) any time of the day. Whereas in hospital or nursing home zones only 45 dB(A) during the day and 35 dB(A) during the night are allowed. It also depends on the type of noise source, e.g. construction noise has a longer night (20:00 - 7:00 compared to 22:00 - 6:00 for normal "commercial" noise sources) and some penalty for early/late day noise, commercial noise has a penalty* for early/late daytime and sundays; sports noise has day, night and quiet hours and they differ working days vs. sundays and holidays. There are no legal limits on noise emitted by children (incl. kindergarden, playgrounds), but neighborhood noise (party) does have restrictions, and machine-emitted noise has further restrictions. * penalties: some of these regulations use weighted sound pressure levels that upweight certain particularly disturbing characteristics of the noise (information content of noise, particular tones sticking out, impulse-type [sudden] noise, ...). Festivals and events are covered by the "recreational noise directive" (Freizeitlärmrichtlinie, state law) puts emphasis on communal planning as in don't put hospital and fair grounds or outdoor recreational swimming pool next to each other, keep some distance between the local skateboard ramp and residential housing. Also, the town market place (where fairs are held) would be an urban zone (or "core" zone) which has higher noise limits than a purely residential zone. Exceptions can be granted for rare (up to 18 days/year) events and festivals that are tightly bound to a particular location ("hohe Standortgebundenheit", e.g. Kieler Woche, Oktoberfest or the annual village fair, but also "moving" festivals like the Hessentag) or socially adequate and accepted. These exceptions can include moving the night hours up to 2 hours (usually only for Friday or Saturday evenings or evenings before public holidays). The higher the (expected) noise level and the more often, the more strictly the exception has to be evaluated. Also, not more than 2 weekends in a row are supposed to be subject to such rare events, and the neighboring residents have to be told (usually >= 2 weeks in advance). There are also technical measures such as focusing sound on the festival area and making sure loud speakers do not emit sound in other directions more than necessary. "sports grounds noise directive" (Sportanlagenlärmschutzverordnung) again, higher immission levels are allowed for rare events, rare being up to 18 days/year exceptions can be granted for sports events of major national or international importance, so when the soccer world cup came to Germany, residents had to put up with that. sometimes exceptions are granted by directive, e.g. public viewing during the 2018 soccer world cup Pubs are commercial businesses and subject to the TA Lärm, but sometimes somewhat less strict rules be used (e.g. see here for NRW). A pub thus cannot be in a purely residential zone: where you have a pub, you are at least in a general residential zone which has higher noise limits. Diskotheken (night clubs) are often in industrial zones. A private party is so-called neighborhood noise (Nachbarschaftslärm) and imission here is governed by state law, plus possibly communal bylaws and last but not least binding clauses in e.g. the rent contract. If there isn't any particular law (AFAIK, e.g. Hesse does not have a state law on this), there's the catch-all §117 OWiG on Inadmissable Noise: (1) Whoever, without a justified reason, or to an inadmissible extent, or to an extent avoidable under the circumstances, causes noise which is suitable to create considerable disturbance to the general public or to the neighbourhood, or to inflict harm upon the health of another, shall be deemed to have committed a regulatory offence. A common rule of thumb would be that between 22:00 - 6:00 and on Sundays or holidays you shouldn't do anything that can be heard outside your flat (Zimmerlautstärke). A typical practical approach is to tell your neighbours that you'll have a party and will they please excuse if there's some noise? Bonus points if you invite them. This doesn't change anything about legal noise levels, but it usually does the trick in terms of no neighbours complaining/not disturbing them. There are so-called silent holidays (again state law, e.g. NRW) with particularly heavy restrictions (no sports events, no markets/fairs/circus, no recreational events, ...)
This an instance of the general rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the municipal ordinances state that a particular place does not allow parking at certain times, then if you park there you have violated the law and will get ticketed. There is no requirement that there be signs prominently posted saying that you must obey the law in this particular location. A law might itself require there to be postings, for example speed limit law pertaining to school zones typically are stated in terms of "posted" boundaries. Assuming that the ordinance doesn't have such a "as posted" requirement, you have no legal leg to stand on, and the burden must be shifted to your political leg. If, for example, you were in Pennsylvania, 75 PaCSA 3353(d) permits local parking ordinances: The department on State-designated highways and local authorities on any highway within their boundaries may by erection of official traffic-control devices prohibit, limit or restrict stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any highway where engineering and traffic studies indicate that stopping, standing or parking would constitute a safety hazard or where the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles would unduly interfere with the free movement of traffic. Signs are kinds of traffic control devices. Since PA does not statutorily prohibit overnight parking, any local restrictions on overnight parking would require signage. Thus restriction such as this one that "The following vehicles shall not be parked between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the streets...", applying to commercial vehicles among others, would require a sign. That borough has an interesting ordinance stating that In the event of a conflict between the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale and the provisions set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3351 through 3354, as amended from time to time, the provisions of the Codified Ordinances of the Borough of Lansdale shall control. Generally speaking, local ordinances are subordinate to state law, so this provision is legally questionable (although: the borough does not actually deny the signage requirement, so technically this is not a conflict, it is just ignoring state law – if there is no signage). The borough could of course argue that they were unaware of the state requirement to post no-parking signs, but ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
You don’t have to swear Witnesses are given the option to swear (technically take an oath) or to affirm, which has no religious connotations. You also don’t actually swear on a Bible if you do swear. For example california. The US is a very religious state france is a secular state - it prohibits religious clothing (hijabs, crucifixes etc.) in schools. The united-kingdom (specifically England) has an official state religion (Anglican) but religion is far less prevalent in politics or society than it is in the US. For example, outside of a place of worship, who your mother is sleeping with is a far more acceptable topic of conversation than what her religious beliefs are. Which is not to say it actually is an acceptable topic of conversation, just that it’s more acceptable than religion. australia elected its first openly atheist Prime Minister in 1983. The US was not founded on the idea that there shouldn’t be established religion, just that there shouldn’t be a state religion - that is, a church backed by the power of the government. Many of the early settlers were fleeing religious prosecution from state religions. Nevertheless, it was never the intention to exclude religion from politics. Indeed, religion in the US influences politics to a much greater degree than it does in most European or Anglophone countries.
also, what is &quot;cannot be punished on account thereof because they lacked criminal responsibility due to the intoxication or if this cannot be ruled out&quot;? I can not understand This means that if a person, while drunk, does soemthign that would otherwise be a crime, but the person cannot be charged because s/he was too drunk to know that s/he was committing a crime, such a person can insted be charged with having become intoxicated, and given up to the same punishment that would have been given for conviction for doign the unlawful act. For example, if a person damaged property while under the influence of alcohol (drunk), it might be impossible under German law to prosecute for the crime of intentionally damaging property, because one could not prove that the person knew what s/he was doing, and knew that it was criminal. In such a case the person could be charged with having intentionally or carelessly become drunk, but the penalty can't be more than the penalty for having damaged property would have been, nor can it be more than five years. As a practical matter, I think it very unlikely that the police would seek to impose a fine if they didn't issue any ticket or other paperwork at the scene, nor mention any such intention. However, they might be legally able to do so.
If you sleep on the streets, you are considered a "SDF" (Sans Domicile Fixe), a tramp. Legality depends on where you sleep, and in which city. It's not illegal to be a SDF (under some conditions), but until the early 1990s it was illegal to be a beggar (mendiant/mendicité -- this reference, Mendicité, is about begging) For instance, sleeping in a car can be legal, except if you are located in a prohibited place where you could have a fine. Some cities have voted anti-SDF acts. See for instance (in French): Dormir dans sa voiture, est-ce légal? and Les précédents dispositifs anti-SDF qui ont fait polémique en France SDF in law acts: PERSONNE SANS DOMICILE FIXE (SDF)
That sounds a lot like the German Antragsdelikt (literally "crime by request"). That is a crime (defined in the criminal code), that can only be prosecuted if the victim requests it. Antragsdelikt mostly applies to less serious crimes, such as slander or petty theft, while "serious" crimes, such as robbery or assault must always be prosecuted (Offizialdelikt). Also, there are many minor crimes (relatives Antragsdelikt) which are usually only prosecuted by request, but where the prosecution can also decide to press charges if it is in the "public interest" (usually because the act is deemed a serious infraction). Similar concepts exist in Austria and Switzerland.
Can he name a particalur one, like Linkin Park? Or that would be considered non-allowed type of advertising? Generally speaking, that does not constitute unlawful advertising. Public figures are allowed to broadcast their preferences on issues that are more sensitive than topics of music. There might be few, rare exceptions where something like this would be outlawed, but most likely that has to do with a regime's censorship of specific bands or music styles rather than with a general prohibition.
A school district has been sued for something like that. In Church of God, Etc. v. Amarillo Indep. Sch., 511 F. Supp. 613, plaintiffs successfully sued the school district "to enjoin the enforcement of the Amarillo School District's absence policy which limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays to two days each school year", where "A fundamental tenet of the Church of God is that members must abstain from secular activity on seven annual holy days". The school district imposed an absence polity where "School work missed may be made up whether an absence is excused or unexcused", and "Excused absences shall be granted to students for a maximum of 2 days for religious holidays in each school year". The court concluded that "This policy poses an unquestionable burden on the Plaintiffs' religious belief", and "This burden is not ameliorated by the make-up work provision. The provision does not require a teacher to evaluate the work made up. It in fact directs the teacher to enter a zero for that work". In this case "Summary judgment is granted and judgment rendered enjoining the enforcement of the Amarillo Independent School District's excused absence policy insofar as it limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays". This is not a matter of religious discrimination, this is a First Amendment issue. The policy is in violation of the Free Exercise clause. Eliminating spring break per se is not a problem: doing so and providing no excused absences is the problem. In the above case, there was clear a religious principle of the church to the effect that one must be off the clock on the holiday. As far as I know, there is no requirement to abstain from work or school on Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday or Good Friday. Nevertheless, in recognition of New Jersey state law which allows any student to take off a religious holiday – including Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and dozens more – the Board of Education has prepared a list of such holidays, which includes Wiccan, Hindu, Baha'i, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Church of Scientology (and so on) religious holidays.