NYC Law Aims To Ban Cell Phones In Theatres 1047
LunarFox writes: "This article on Wired says a New York City councilman is trying to ban cellphones in 'places of public performance'. It would be the first legislation of its kind, following the recent state-wide ban on cellphone use while driving. Wired mentions that actor Laurence Fishburne, in the middle of a Broadway performance, yelled to an audience member to "turn your f___ing phone off!" And here I thought I was the only one who didn't like hearing Flight of the Bumblebee as a ringtone."
Legislating everything under the sun (Score:2, Insightful)
Better than cell phone jammers (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of the technological solutions offered last time this came up on Slashdot talked about cell phone jammers. If it's a civil offense, you can forget to turn your phone off and the worst you can happen is that you get fined. If you are getting jammed, the worst that can happen is that you can't call 911 when you have to, then your family sues the state government for damages after you die.
If you really need your phone, then your company won't mind sucking up the fines when you're called back to the server farm or hospital or wherever you're needed.
waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again.... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Let's Roll", anyone?
Re:Maybe it's time (Score:4, Insightful)
out. That's a job for an usher, not for a cop.
Re:Maybe it's time (Score:3, Insightful)
Sense of proportion needed (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a case where "the market" can regulate itself; theatres which strictly enforce bans on audible phones and beepers will do better than ones which don't.
It's also a case where social pressures (such as being yelled at by actors) is probably sufficient without adding even more trivial cases to an overloaded judiciary system.
Vibrate function (Score:1, Insightful)
A nice stiff $500 fine would be good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Story Time (Score:0, Insightful)
The point is, regardless of whether or not it happened, it was still an incredibly offensive thing to say and you have admitted that you took part in this. The point is not that someone being a "fag" is a bad thing (as the word has come to mean in popular usage); the point is that it is used (and continues to be used) in an incredibly vicious way attacking people who are gay.
And I'm really sick of people accusing other people who speak out about these things as being wrapped up in some "PC crap." For me, this is exactly the same as the people who would get labeled as "too sensitive" when, about 40 years ago, they would object to people using the word "nigger." Now, there certainly are cases where people get upset for the sake of being upset (and are overly politically correct), but this just is not one of them. It's incredibly offensive and you shouldn't take pride in the fact that you joined in with it.
It sends a message (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me this is not legislating morality at all. It's legislating what people can or cannot do in a public place. It has nothing to do with morality, but everything to do with people in large groups being able to get along without wringing each other's necks.
I'm adamantly opposed to DMCA, US Patriot, etc, but comparing those two misguided pieces of legislation to a simple prohibition in one city agains the use of cell phones in theaters is pretty silly.
Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on.. (Score:3, Insightful)
-Sean
Re:Maybe it's time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then don't keep it in your purse. Why should others have to suffer the implications of your phone ringing in the middle of the movie just so you can be 'fashionable' or more comfortable or whatever. If you expect that you might be contacted in the middle of a movie, then it is up to you to make sure it doesn't affect anyone else. If you can't manage that, then you shouldn't be entering a public place where there are social norms in place which discourage this behaviour.
Not just in theatres. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have become amazingly selfish as a nation and it is being reflected in everything from speeding through neighborhoods, to taking phone calls in inappropriate places to feeling justified in taking that extra half hour for lunch on company time. (Don't forget all of those "first post" punks. Nobody cares. You are just noise to be filtered through.) Because of this general societal disregard that some folks have, we have to start enforcing certain issues that should be checked due to a sense of shame that seems to be lacking. Ergo, speedbumps in neighborhoods to slow people down and because our hospital had problems with employees who were billing the hospital for extra time around lunch and in the mornings and evenings, time clocks that check you in and out were implemented. As for cell phones? We also have problems with cell phones in hospitals as they can disrupt certain electronic equipment being used for patient care. But do people care? No. We have signs up all over the place saying please do not use your cell phone, but folks simply ignore it. Therefore, could the solution here simply be cell free zones that are electronically enforced? They have them in resturaunts in Japan after all. This way no new laws need to be created or enforced and it would probably be cheaper to proactively block the signals.
Re:Great, more legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish the government would spend its time and money encouraging people to educate their kids, be responsible for themselves, and to be citizens who take an active part in the betterment of society rather than trying to control people through micromanagment via petty ordinances.
Horrible idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I hate idiots using cellphones during performances and would make an effort to support theaters which ban their use over other theaters. However, I just don't see this as being part of the governments jursidiction.
Re:Common Courtesy (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where you go see movies, but I haven't seen one in about five years that hasn't been preceded by some little picture of a dancing tub of popcorn or some such nonsense, reminding me to buy coke, throw away my trash, buy coke, don't talk, buy coke, turn off my cell phone, and buy coke. Point is, the messages are there, people just do not give a damn. And that, you can't legislate. (Although I expect it to soon be mandatory to buy coke.)
Special case exemptions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Another solution that I've thought out --- Instead of a Phone-jamming as what has been done in a few resturants -- which can potentially be unsafe, mandate that phone manufactures construct phones that respond to a certain signal, and automatically go into vibrate, or quiet mode.
I fear too many phones have already made their way on to the market for this to work. :(
What's more unsettling in the theatre... (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, I don't see a problem a person having a cellphone on in the theatre, just as long as the ringer is off, and that the person does not answer it within the movie/performance. As a person who understands the restrictions of an on-call policy, I look at restricions such as this as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. People such as I would be unnecessarily restricted from public performances for a week or more, depending on how your company handles on-call. I personally followed an ettiquite of turning off the ringer, yet leaving the phone on to see if an important call comes in. Perhaps a better idea than banning is to fine those who disturb a performance whether by ringer or phone conversation, leaving the type of fine up to the theatre.
Re:Sense of proportion needed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another article and misleading poll (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe those people are reading the poll and voting "Yes" because THAT'S WHAT THEY THINK.
I like this reasoning. "These people voted differently than I would; therefore they made a mistake."
Right. Good thought process.
Re:Common Courtesy (Score:2, Insightful)
What we really need is some automatic protocol that phones and pagers recognized mean "this is a vibrate only zone".
*bzzt* Invalid reason - put on vibrate (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand she's a health care provider and she (along with firefighters, doctors, etc.) need to stay in communication. Put it on vibrate and carry it on your person, not in your purse. Duh. Even better, get someone to cover for you for a couple of hours.
In any case, when you get such a call in the theater, step into the lobby and call the back. Don't fucking answer your phone in the theater. Sheesh.
On military bases, there are alert crews that are on standby to bomb the shit out of Russia or Iraq or whoever. They go to the arcade, movie theatre, and whatnot when they're on standby. In the theatre there are flashing alert lights that come on in case of an alert. They get up and run to the nearest exit. Interruption in movie is maybe 15-30 seconds.
Is this why people have Media Rooms or vice versa? (Score:2, Insightful)
has the wide spreading presence of home theatre experiences caused people to value less going out to a public venue to see a show turning them into the idiots in quesion?
Chicken meet Egg. Egg meet chicken.
Re:It sends a message (Score:3, Insightful)
-russ
Re:Maybe it's time (Score:3, Insightful)
Banning cell phone use in cars is just stupid.
I'm not about to cite it as fact, but one of the recent safety campaigns where I work was urging employees not to talk on the phone while driving unless a speakerphone is used. Supposedly, there was a study about how talking on the phone was as dangerous as driving while intoxicated with a blood/alcohol level 3x the legal limit.
I take every "statistic" with a large lump of salt and the same would be true of this particular instance if it weren't for the fact that just about every other day I see some idoit talking on his or her cell phone while at the same time running red lights, cutting off semis, or otherwise conducting all manner of moving violations possible.
It is my opinion that in this country, cell phones have only enabled the stupid to act stupider, but this time with a tinny piezo-produced rendition of The Entertainer as an excuse.
Re:Sense of proportion needed (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, it's easy to spout such rhetoric, but it's, after all, the way our government is suppose to work. Pervasive legislation regulating behavior in the public sector simply makes people view and accept such regulation in the future (just as we, as a nation, accept and are used to paying income tax so much so it's a political issue). The next generation gets used to such laws. More similar laws get passed. People continue to think it's okay.
Let's put this law right where it belongs--it's akin to those stupid small town laws that state "you can't cross main street with a football team", "you can't serve more than x number of drinks an hour", and other such laws that supposedly only small, backwards towns have. Except, when it's NYC and millions of people, oh, well, it's a political issue, not a curiousity.
btw, everyone seems to think that the smoking law recently talked about/passed was for the direct health "benefit" of folks wining and dining in the city. Ummm, not really. That's the story line. Watch--within a decade, they will come up with permits/licenses for establishments to purchase to allow smoking, as long as such establishments meet certain regulations, e.g. if they prominantly show it's a smoking establishment, or meet certain ventilation measures. Of course, such permits/licenses will have a yearly "charge" to acquire or maintain.
These and other laws boil down to a few things--yeah, big whoop, the common denominator for many folks, money. Politicians don't really care if the shows are enjoyable for all; they're more concerned that the cell phones have been pushing away folks from going to the theatre, which hurts the taxable revenue the (less so) theatres take in and (more so) the adjacent business acquire from theatre traffic (like restaurants).
No states ban cellphone use while driving (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right, wanna-be's. If you think you're such a big shot as to need to do business in your car, fine, do what a real big shot does. Hire a fscking driver to drive the car while you sit in the back and make all the phone calls you want. The megacorp where I formerly worked actually provided chauffeured company limosines for all managers starting at the executive director level (ED was one level below VP, so ED's were generally in charge of a few hundred people). They were wise to do that.
At the time I thought it was a ridiculous perk to make the mucky-mucks feel important. Looking back, I understand it a lot better. The ED types really did have to take 7am conference calls while en route to work, entertain visitors on the way to and from the airport, etc. The limos really let the company get more work out of the ED's and probably saved a bunch of road accidents. When the company saw that its execs needed to take meetings in the car, they did it the right way and there was nothing pretentious about it. It's the pseudo-execs who insist on endangering traffic because they're not important enough to rate getting a car with a driver who are pretentious. If your time isn't so valuable that it's worth your company's while to supply you with a driver, then you can afford to pull over or stay in the office when you make your phone calls.
Note, I don't advocate a total ban on using the phone while driving, since a short call to let someone know where you are doesn't suck your mind away from the road. I'd get rid of the handsfree/non-handsfree distinction and instead make it a violation for a driver to be on the phone more than 2 minutes continuously while the car is moving. An accident where cell tower records show the driver was on the phone more than 2 minutes should be treated similarly to DWI, since accident statistics show cell phone use and drinking are comparably dangerous.
Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out (Score:5, Insightful)
I do own a cell phone. I reluctantly bought one for my wife and I only because we had a child. Two people, not counting myself have my phone number: My wife and my father (well 3 if you count my mom). Usually I don't bring the phone with me, unless I am expecting to hear something specific from my wife. And even then, I will *never* bother to take or make a call while driving, and my wife knows that. (What's the point of a having a super-performance car if you're not dedicated to driving it?)
People are amazed to find out I own a phone but don't have it with me, and that I could care less. I would swear that it is becoming a status thing to not have to immediately answer to anyone who calls you -- rather they have to wait for you to contact them at your convienence. The expressions I see on people's faces after questioning why they let someone else interrupt them are priceless. It's as if they never realized it until just now...
What's happened here? Are we now all beholdend to answer someone and anyone's call at any hour of the day? Sorry, but that's a quick way to lead a high stress life. What about time and place that is our own? Did people just give that up without realizing the price paid?
Sure, other people have more ligitemate callers and calls to make --- but really, are they all necessary? or are we just conditioned to talk on the phone because it's there? I'll bet most people can't see or admit to themselves that their calls are alot more noise and less signal then they'd like to think... i.e. many of their calls could be eliminated and they wouldn't be any worse off.
Must all calls allways be answered? Does that mean everyone calling is more important than you are?
Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If [vibrate mode] doesn't work very well [if] "you're female and the phone is in your purse" (as mentioned in a previous post), then what about:
Or Ask your employer to replace your crappy phone with a vibrating model, or if you love theatre enough then shell out your own cash to buy the non-annoying phone. It can't be more expensive than a couple of theatre tickets.
Real Solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your phone could have a setting to automatically accept the ringer off command, or promt you if you chose... There would still be assholes, but you wouldn't have the "oops I forgot to turn the ringer off" syndrome.
The perfect solution (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is an easy, self-enforcing, non-technical solution to the problem. When the US Supreme Court ruled flag burning constitutionally-protected free speech, one state (Mississippi, IIRC) had a creative solution. Since the state couldn't enforce any laws prohibiting burning the flag, they simply passed a law stating that the maxiumum penalty would be US$25 for assulting someone who was in the process of burining a flag. I would happily pay $25 to be able to vent my frutstration on some jackass who leaves his cellphone on in the theater.
Re:Story Time (Score:1, Insightful)
Bluetooth application (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing no one actually made that happen, though. I have a bluetooth phone now, and the manual doesn't say anything about that. Would be nice though eh?
Re:Sense of proportion needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine, you go to a play, movie, opera, restaurant, pub to relax. But no--everywhere you go there are people who act like they are above others. If it saves just one man from being stoned to death by a stressed-out man in vicinity, a law like this is worth it.
This is a case where "the market" can regulate itself
Other immoral, anti-social functions besides this exist--for example, stealing. Installing signs that say "Remember to please pay before you leave!" at stores wouldn't help much, would they? But laws kind of help out. When you pay $10-50 for a performance, you do not want to be robbed of your enjoyment/time/money. Theater is UNIQUE in that you pay for the experience. A good performance is priceless and worth thousands, while time and money spent at any performance ruined by cell phones could become worthless.
Interestingly enough, I'm sure that both thieves and many people who "need" a phone every second, even during sleep, feel they are smarter and above others in society or the same people. (I'm sure you know of people who are BOTH.)
Re:Sense of proportion needed (Score:2, Insightful)
It IS the legislature's role to amend the law where people suffer through other's malfeasance, and where neither the common law, nor existing statute law provide any them with any legal remedy nor relief. This seems to be exactly what is happening here.
Moreover, as a categorical statement, your statment fails more generally. People's behaviour has long included violence (assault, rape, murder). In regard to such behaviour, it is generally accepted that it is the role of government to change (and indeed halt) it.
insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm from Finland and this used to be quite a big problem here. Not just at cinemas. It seems people have learned now and for the last couple of years, I don't recall being disturbed by someone's phone at a movie theatre or restaurant. It just takes a while before people pick up on the etiquette. But you sure as hell don't need a law for it.
"Land of the free" indeed.
Re:Common Courtesy (Score:5, Insightful)
"On call" doesn't automatically mean "interrupts performances with loud ring tones and in-theater phone conversations".
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on.. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, let's see...let's call it an hour wasted on the ends (together), and two hours of movie time that I'm going to have to spend again to see the movie, so three hours at 15 dollars an hour, plus a 7 dollar movie ticket...so that's...about 50 dollars.
When she's willing to pay me, and everyone else, 50 dollars so we can see the damned movie again, sure, she can have a cellphone not on vibrate. Otherwise, I don't see how her job magically gives her the right to rip me off. I mean, hell, the President isn't allow to pickpocket people, is he? Doctors aren't allowed to ram people off the road to get to the hospital faster, are they? Well, nurses aren't allowed to steal from movie goers.
I hope her experienced scared her so back she'll never go into a theater again with her cellhone on ring.
Re:Thank God! (Score:3, Insightful)
When they see they are about to have an accident, then there won't be an accident. The problem is, there is an accident, because you haven't much time to react.
> A recent study found...
Certainly you are referring to the study of the AAA, which states that mobiles are only responsible in 1.5% of the accidents.
Assuming Heroin is only responsible in 0.1% of the accidents, should be driving under the influence of heroin be legalised?
You can see the problem, it's an abolute number.
There was a study in Great Britain:
There were two test groups. One had to answer answers over a mobile, the other one was driving with 0.8 pro mille alcohol in blood.
The result: The people talking over the mobile reacted by 30% slower than the drunk people.
The advantage of people using mobiles, their self-assessment is not as distorted as drunk people.
So they probably get more seldom into situations, where they need to react. But same applies to people consuming cannabis. A study in the Netherlands showed that people under the influence of cannabis are driving more careful, but have a slower time of reaction.
Dumb phones (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, having my phone go off in a church/cinema/theatre/lecture etc. would be pretty f*cking embarrassing. It wouldn't help if the person at the front started shouting at me. Obviously, some people are so full of themselves that they don't really care.
Since the technology industry has been pleasuring themselves in anticipation of how much they can screw us with DRM and gadgets that follow _their_ commands, I expect they will use the GPS features in newer phones to lock the device when it enters a designated area such as a cinema, this would be pretty evil i agree - someone else controlling your property is never good, but the alternative would be to build shielding into buildings themselves...
Re:The perfect solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if you're watching anything that Hollywood has done in the past twenty years, the dialog is so lame and predictable that you already know it before the actors speak, so why would it matter if you miss a line here or there?
May as well voice my opinion too (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't need legislation - it can be handled by the people. If you run a theatre, remind your patrons to turn off the ringers on their cell phones, or you'll throw them out. Train the kids in red suits to throw them out, too. If you're at a theatre and somebody's cell phone rings, politely let them know that it's bothering you, and let the management know too. I don't see why we should legislate manners. If society finds it to be rude, let society scold offenders.
Re:No states ban cellphone use while driving (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the likelihood of me being out with my family and getting hit by a pilot is almost nil.
What you're basically saying is 'wait until somethign bad happens, THEN act', which is fucking stupid if you've ever lost someone to drunk driving, criminal negligence, or the like. What about people who can drive straight while drunk, but have reduced reflexes or attention span? Are you saying let them run a stopsign or red light and kill someone before we do anything?
We set arbitrary limits because there have to be some limits. Limits that we have e.g. on DWI (blood alcohol, etc) mean that if you're drunk and get caught, you're fucked no matter what - you're not off the hook just because you didn't kill someone, or just because the accident wasn't your fault.
Moral of the story, we have DWI laws because driving while impaired is NOT fine just because you didn't kill someone, because who knows what'll happen next time?
--Dan