Plain and simple, you can't put restritcitions on term "noisy".  If the courts or the ABC board try, they will always face claims that they are violating people's first amendment rights.  The ABC board needs to leave this up to the local police departments.  It has always been the job of the ABC to legalize, regulate and control the drinking and use of alcohol, not to restrict the noise levels of local bars.  If there is a noise problem let it be the discretion of the establishment or of the police officers who sit right out front all night long.  It appears as though the local bars in the area do not fit the city officals new visions of the  city, and because of this, they are looking for any and every reason to close down the bars.  The case that is the subject  of this discussion shows that the ABC board is simply trying to bog the judicial system instead of admitting defeat.  How much longer is this going to go on?

First, it has been proven many times that the term "noisy" is vague and unconstitutional.  The most recent Virginia case being Norfolk 302, LLCt/a, Have A Nice Day Cafe, et al. v. Esther H. Vassar, Chari, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, et al.  Civil Action No. 2:07cv203.  In this case, the court held that Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is "to legalize, regulate and control...drinking and use of alcohol." Citing Miller v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 639, 2 S.E.2d 343. 

The court also holds that "noisy...conduct" is vague and that the ABC Board's argument is unpersuasive in saying that the Virginia Court of Appeals has adopted a narrowing construction that remedies any constitutional infirmity citing Supermarket Express, L.L.C. v. Com., Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 2005 WL 645157, at *3 n. 1. 

The court ruled that the Court of Appeals's definition of "noisy" is also deficient because it does not provide reasonable standards for enforcement by ABC agents and courts.  The individuals charges with enforcing section 4.1-225(1)(h) have no greater ability to recognize a violation of the statute than those persons operating establishments subject to its prohicition.  The General Assembly failed to tie the word "noisy" to any "explicit standard for enforcement, "U.S. Labor Party v. Pomerleau, 557 F.2d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 1977), and the Supermarket's holding does not fix the problem. 

Further, it was ruled that thee judicial gloss on the term "noisy" falls short of saving it from a facial attack.  Though "loud confuse, or senseless shouting or outcry, or "din or uproar of persons," is admittedly tighter language than "nosiy...conduct," the judicial constructions are still doubly vague.

Let the police and local establishments decide on what a proper noise level is, not the ABC.  If the noise gets out of hand, let the police and bars kick the people out.  Hey they can even arrest them for noise polution if they feel fit.