Is it illegal to turn off someone’s loudspeakers in public?
<p>Let’s suppose someone goes to a certain street and plays an audiobook recording about their political program every day on the speakers at loud volume. If someone walks up and switches the recording off so that it stops playing and causing a nuisance to everyone until they walk back down to the end of the street to put it back on, is the person turning it off committing any sort of crime?</p>

<p>Not &quot;illegal&quot;, but rather a <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_wrong" rel="noreferrer">&quot;civil wrong&quot;</a> instead as this sounds like a (minor) case of
<a href="https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/trespass-to-chattels.html#:%7E:text=Trespass%20to%20chattels%20refers%20to,wrongful%20interference%20of%20personal%20property." rel="noreferrer">Trespass to Chattels</a>, being:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...an intentional interference with another person's lawful possession of a personal property. A &quot;chattel&quot; refers to any personal property, moving or unmoving. Trespass to chattels does not apply to real property or any interest in land. In order to prove trespass to chattels, you are required to show the following elements:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Intent to trespass: Merely intending to do the act is enough to show this element of trespass. You don't necessarily need to show intent to harm a specific person.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Lack of owner's consent: There must be an unauthorized, unlawful interference, which means the person interfered with or dispossessed the chattel without the owner's permission.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Interference of chattels: A person commits a trespass to chattel by (1) dispossessing another of the chattel, (2) using or <em><strong>intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another</strong></em>, or (3) damaging the chattel. Interference does include dispossession of a chattel, but it must be something short of conversion.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Whether it would be actionable is another question as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis" rel="noreferrer"><em>de minimis non curat lex</em></a></p>
<p><sub>Although the above link is from an American site, it mirrors the UK definition and is the best and most succinct explanation I can find</sub></p>

<h2>Probably Not</h2>
<p>In most jurisdiction there is no specific law against touching another person's property without harming it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the person playing the recording may well not be committing any crime either. In some places there are anti-noise laws which apply if a recording is played at more than a specified volume. In some places there are laws against &quot;nuisances&quot; which are variously defined.</p>
<p>For a somewhat similar fact pattern, see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut" rel="noreferrer"><em>Cantwell v. Connecticut</em>, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)</a> in which a person played a recording of a speech about religious views, and was arrested for &quot;breech of the peace&quot; when others present objected.</p>

united-kingdom england-and-wales