Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

According to Metro's Weird fact of the day:

It is against the law to sing off-key in North Carolina.

Is there such a law?

share|improve this question
6  
Would this count? "§ 160A‑184. Noise regulation. A city may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the production or emission of noises or amplified speech, music, or other sounds that tend to annoy, disturb, or frighten its citizens. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 25.)"? – Oddthinking Aug 12 '12 at 3:50
    
@Oddthinking: How'd you access that? – Casebash Aug 12 '12 at 5:13
    
@Oddthinking: That probably is the answer – Casebash Aug 12 '12 at 5:19
2  
I searched North Carolina General Assembly's page. I am not excited about calling this an answer, because it merely says a city (there's another statute giving similar rights to counties) could make a law - and clearly it isn't aimed at off-key singing but any annoying noise. (Unless there are cases where it has been applied for off-key singing, which I don't have.) – Oddthinking Aug 12 '12 at 6:31
    
While I don't know about this example, a lot of these stories about ridiculously specific laws are actually just special examples of more general and sensible laws. So a law that generally forbids obstructing the highway might be represented as banning the driving of sheep down the Main Street in SomeTown, Random County. Yes, if you try it you will be prosecuted for obstruction, but there isn't a law banning that particular act and no other. – Paul Johnson Feb 19 at 18:40

It's unlikely such a law has ever existed, and no record of such a law can be found today. As @Oddthinking has referred to in comments, the closest thing to such a law is North Carolina General Statute 160A-184 which states;

"A city may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the production or emission of noises or amplified speech, music, or other sounds that tend to annoy, disturb, or frighten its citizens. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 25.)"

This however, only gives a city the right to make a law regulating the emission of annoying/disturbing/frightening sounds.

The likely origin of this rumor (so called "law") however, pre-dates the statue described above. In 1873, there was a case (State vs. Linkhaw) where a man was disturbing a church service with his singing. The details however, reveal that the problem was not primarily that he was accused of "singing out of tune" but rather that he was disturbing the church service by singing even when the congregation was not.

INDICTMENT FOR MISDEMEANOR, TRIED BEFORE RUSSELL, J., AT ROBESON SUPERIOR COURT, SPRING TERM, 1873. DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED FOR DISTURBING A RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION. THE EVIDENCE AS DETAILED BY SEVERAL WITNESSES WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THIS: DEFENDANT IS A MEMBER OF THE METHODIST CHURCH; HE SINGS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DISTURB THE CONGREGATION; AT THE END OF EACH VERSE, HIS VOICE IS HEARD AFTER ALL THE OTHER SINGERS HAVE CEASED...

Although initially he was declared guilty for said disturbance, upon appeal, the courts deemed;

It would seem that the defendant is a proper subject for the discipline of his church, but not for the discipline of the Courts.

Thank you to Katie Quine of "Our State" who spoke to a state research historian to track down this origin information.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.