INTENTIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE AS A BATTERY? A CASE STUDY OF CANADA'S FREEDOM CONVOY.

This article assesses a hypothetical battery claim for noise exposure in Australia using Canada's Freedom Convoy as a case study. I first advance a normative account for why battery ought to respond to noiserelated interferences using Kit Barker's taxonomy of 'vindication events'. I argue that battery, relative to negligence and private nuisance: (1) more accurately 'marks' and 'declares' the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity and 'denounces' the defendant's intentional interference; and (2) improves access to 'appropriate compensation' post-infringement. I also explain how the 'prevention of rights infringements' fits within my normative account. I then answer the key doctrinal questions of whether and when noise exposure constitutes an actionable battery. I draw from existing common law precedents to show that physical contact by sound waves is 'direct' and capable of being 'offensive'. I conclude by addressing the concern that my doctrinal conclusions would unduly burden protesters' implied freedom of political communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]