I don't think it really targeted EDM. It just had to have some kind of differentiator in the law about what is a noise and what's music. And > “music” includes

I don't think it really targeted EDM. It just had to have some kind of differentiator in the law about what is a noise and what's music. And > “music” includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats. Is fairly reasonable. It also seems the law mostly relates to being able to stop the rave and remove people rather than making it a criminal offence to do the thing. > This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of [F220] or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose— https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/V/crossheading/powers-in-relation-to-raves https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/V/crosshea... Edit - I'm not diving into the depths of this so you are likely be very right in terms of what it's responding to, but I think its important in the framing about what lead to a law and the goal and what it actually says. A law against open air music festivals that cause "distress" may be bad in terms of freedom but it's not as stupid as banning a type of music.