Slashdot Mirror
NYC Law Aims To Ban Cell Phones In Theatres
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."
I can understand wishing to impose penalties on drivers who threaten the safety of others by devoting their attention to a cell phone. I don't think the law should be used to punish what are effectively breaches of etiquette, though. It seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an annoying fly.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
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.
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
Ban those whining, crying babies, those are more annoying.
... FAA regulations prohibit the use of cell phones while in flight.
"Let's Roll", anyone?
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Well, maybe an usher shoulda thrown him
out. That's a job for an usher, not for a cop.
Considered harmful.
I'm surprised that somebody didn't just go up to the guy and beat the shit out of him.
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.
Its funny how many people have vibrate functions on their cellphone and STILL have it ringing like a banshee in the most inopportune times. I only have my cellphone on ring when I'm in the car. All other times, I let it buzz me.
Nuff said, esp all those stupid kids in the movie theaters who have the gall to ANSWER the phone and TALK for 10 mins! Kick them out and fine them broke as shit so they can't see any more movies.
(now I know someone is going to attack with some PC crap about the word fag -- get over yourself, that was what really happened, and it was funny, and I dont wanna hear it :)
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.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Fine. I agree that cell phones are important to many people. BUT, that said, those people shouldn't be going to the theatre, opera or anything else when they think they *might* receive a call. Why on earth should we suffer because some doctor wants to see a movie? I work in the dept of medicine at a major university (as a PhD scientist) and I think many of us realize this exact dilema and deal with it appropriately. Don't complain about the importance of cell phones until we ban them from your homes and the streets.
-Sean
Maybe you should have told him to turn off the fucking phone after the first 30 seconds. If you tell him loud enough that he can't hear the conversation, you're doing good. Too many people are sheep and pussies, maybe both.
For those who might ask "What about vibrate mode?", it doesn't work very well well you're female and the phone is in your purse.
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.
I.O.U One Sig.
It's pretty simple actually. There are perhaps eleven thousand people in the U.S.A. that are important enough to have to take a call whereever and whenever. But the rest of people don't rate and have no business taking a call in a theatre, a resturaunt, or even in the grocery. It's funny but it used to be that the ones who carried pagers in the 80's were either physicians, corporate captains or drug dealers. Then when I was an undergrad everyone had pagers. Now when I walk through campus on the way to the hospital or my lab EVERYONE is talking on cell phones constantly. Who are they talking to? Even in a history class I was sitting in on recently had a student who actually took a call while in class! I was flabbergasted as you would be crucified if that happened in any of my medical school classes or in any of my PhD coursework. But my friend teaching the history class says it happens from time to time.
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
I don't think the city should be making laws about this. Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc. If the owners of the theater are ok with people using cellphones, it is none of the city's business.
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
>> Maybe a sign 'please shut off your cell phones.' Alot of people just forget
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.)
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Admittedly I haven't read up on this in detail, but is there any exceptions set in place for doctors, network admins*, and other jobs where being on call 24 hours a day is extremely important? I mean if these people want to go to a movie or a broadway show they should be able to like everyone else. I know that paging is a far better idea and probably most doctors stick with those, but there's got to be some jobs out there where having a cell phone active all the time is a requirement. *: Assuming network admins get away from the computers and out into that big scary world once in a while :)
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
...a cellphone ringer going off, or Laurence Fishburne yelling "Turn your f__king phone off!". I'd have to say I'd be shaking in my boots after hearing the latter.
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.
I am MuchTall
Mmmm... hmmm. And you know this how? Because you would vote "no"?
:)
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.
What we really need is some automatic protocol that phones and pagers recognized mean "this is a vibrate only zone".
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the last year, I've have a number of surreal incidents brought about by the fact that I didn't have a cell phone with me, kept it turned off if I did, or asked other people the seemingly obvious questions about why they are bothering with a cell phone instead of ignoring their caller.
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?
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.
With more and more cell phones being bluetooth enabled, how hard would it be to integrate some sort of "ringer off" message that went out to all cell phones in the area? That way, anywhere that thought it required quietness could easily turn off the ringer... This would be somewhat expensive, but bluetooth hardware is supposed to be cheap...
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.
I don't think it'd be practical to ban somebody from a particularly busy theater.
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.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
We need a new rating (Score:-1, Sanctimonious Twit)
One of the things I kept reading as an application for Bluetooth, when it was still totally vaporware, was that people could set up "no-phone zones" wherein any phone in the area would just shut off, or go to vibrate mode, or whatever.
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?
While I hate cellphones in cinemas, cafés and restaurants as much as the next guy, I think a *law* to prohibit them in those places is absolutely absurd! What's next? A law against putting your elbows on the table? A law against not opening the door to older people? A law that says you can't chew with your mouth open?
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.
I'm on call 24x7, and yet I go to movie theatres all the time. I simply leave my phone on vibrate and excuse myself if I see the call is work-related (caller ID).
"On call" doesn't automatically mean "interrupts performances with loud ring tones and in-theater phone conversations".
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I think the issue here is not so much the phone, but the F*CKING STUPID NOISES IT MAKES! Why do people use stupid ring tones? its not funny, and certainly not novel anymore. Things that make lame noises and play tunes have been available since the 80's so why do people still actually find them attractive? You wouldn't go around town with a mullet! Dom Jolly was making a point when he went round London on a massive phone with the (perhaps copyright-infringing) Nokia ring tone on it, take his point and make your phone quieter. Put it on vibrate and the ring tone that makes a few little beeps, you can still hear it and turn it off before it gets any louder.
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...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
For everybody who wants to install some sort of signal jamming system: That would probably be illegal because there are some types (doctors, ambulance, police, fire dept.) who need their pagers to work, even when they're out at the theatre.
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.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.