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."

24 of 928 comments (clear)

  1. Bah by GrumpyYoYoHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ban those whining, crying babies, those are more annoying.

  2. Re:Maybe it's time by DEBEDb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, maybe an usher shoulda thrown him
    out. That's a job for an usher, not for a cop.

    --

    Considered harmful.
  3. Re:Maybe it's time by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised that somebody didn't just go up to the guy and beat the shit out of him.

  4. Sense of proportion needed by DoctorFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's a huge difference between enacting a law to preserve public saftey and enacting one to prevent morons from annoying you.

    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.

  5. A nice stiff $500 fine would be good. by Viewsonic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. It sends a message by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, the law might not be enforced by cops, but it basically says to cell phone users that the people of this city doesn't sanction the use of cell phones during artistic performances. That's a clear social sanction.

    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
    1. Re:It sends a message by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Allowing stupid laws like the proposed cellphone restriction is precisely WHY we have other stupid laws like the DMCA and the US Patriot Act. It's the result of a failure to use your imagination to see how a problem can be solved without using the violence of the state.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  7. Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on.. by smoondog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  8. Re:Maybe it's time by NeMon'ess · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Not just in theatres. by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Great, more legislation by 3583+Bytes+Free · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think that this problem -- the need to legislate good manners -- is the result of American individualism run amok. "If there's no law against it, then I have the right to do it." Many have pointed out that Europeans are quite at ease with cell phones. Maybe most Americans are pretty good about it, but there are enough who don't give a damn about the people around them that it is a true nuisance.

    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.

  11. Horrible idea by donutello · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Re:Common Courtesy by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> 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
  13. *bzzt* Invalid reason - put on vibrate by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 5, Insightful
    *bttzt* Nope, sorry - not good enough.


    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.

  14. Re:Maybe it's time by Eil · · 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.

  15. No states ban cellphone use while driving by phr2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    NY only bans handheld cellphones--you're still allowed to use a handsfree one. And that misses the point. Handsfree helps only part of the issue. The other part is driver distraction due to pseudo-big-shot executives holding complex business meetings on the cell phone while driving in traffic. They don't need a handsfree phone. They need a brainfree car, like a real big shot uses.

    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.

    1. Re:No states ban cellphone use while driving by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We wouldn't treat a fighter pilot the same as a private hobbyist. So why do we apply the same silly standard to drivers?

      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

  16. Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out by The+Optimizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  17. Real Solution? by boopus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. The perfect solution by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:The perfect solution by ShavenYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that's good thinking. Ten seconds of annoying ringtones and assault are such comparable actions. Your enjoyment of the movie is far more important than the physical well-being of others. Right. I hope you don't have kids, I'd hate to think of the punishment you'd find appropriate for some of their misbehavior.

      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?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  19. insanity by macpeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Common Courtesy by susano_otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  21. May as well voice my opinion too by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.