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."

Comments

It's about time

[fishlet]

Specificly, those annoying 'tunes' that cell phones play... turn the F#$#$# things off. After all, people pay good money to enjoy such public performances, not listen to your phone. It's a shame that laws have to be passed to enforce what should just be common courtesy

Re:It's about time

[tonywong]

Sheesh, all this bitching and no real solution. Just remember this is a social and technical issue, not necessarily a legislative issue.

Just introduce a standard that allows for the response to a 'suppression' gateway that automagically turns down/off the phone upon entering areas that need peace and quiet. Libraries, theatres, hospitals etc. Kind of like the robot exclusion rule for web crawling bots.

Re:It's about time

[falzer]

They should just make the ringtone a coughing sound.

No one will suspect it's a phone ringing.

Re:It's about time

[KernelHappy]

That's such a great idea. Lets get rid of communication because it's annoying to some. Lets make sure that someone who is doing research in a library is totally out of touch from their job. Just because you don't want to be disturbed in a theater a specializing surgeon who was considerate enough to put their phone on silent mode shouldn't be contactable.

The hospital does make sense, but not for peace and quiet. Maybe you've never been in a hospital but they are rather noisy for most of the day. People are told to turn off cell phones because they can possibly interfere with equipment (like pacemakers). But suppressing peoples phones would only make it worse in such an environment since most modern cell phones will actually increase their transmission power if they cannot obtain a signal.

For stopping annoying people with annoying cell phones I personally like Mr. Fishburns approach, public humiliation. Probably far more effective to publicly lambaste inconsiderate people. People will eventually remember to check if their phone is in silent mode after they have been harassed or have seen someone harassed. Same thing goes for these numbnuts that put the phone in silent mode but answer it and have a loud conversation about their friends new shoes.

As far as hospitals go maybe a different technological solution is in order. Just monitor the entrance for transmitting cell phones. As someone walks through the entrance. If someone enters with a active cell phone they can be reminded to turn it off. The only thing I'm not sure about is how often a idle cell phone actually transmits something detectable. If the interval is too long between transmissions you could shield the entrance hall causing the phones to try and reestablish the connection with a tower thus announcing itself to the previously mentioned monitoring device.

Who knows, maybe I'm just silly, not wanting to the punish considerate people or disrupt the potentially beneficial connectivity because of some morons.

Re:It's about time

[Verizon Guy]

What 75% of the public (probably) fails to understand is that most phones nowadays have a f***ing vibrate feature! And more often than not its the women with the damn annoying ring tones... you'd think they'd enjoy the vibrating ringer more... y'know?

Re:It's about time

[DNS-and-BIND]

I refute your post thusly:

"Turn Off Your Cell Phones. Answering a Cell Phone call during an exam constitutes cheating."
-From Rules for Exam Taking, University of Florida.

"At first I thought it was some kind of joke."
-Mary Lou Fulton, speaking of her cousin's cell phone ringing while he was taking his marriage vows.

"There are times, especially in church, when we don't need to be accessible to the world at large."
-Sharlande Sledge, associate pastor at Lake Shore Baptist Church in Waco, Texas

Dr. Leroy McCloud, St. Petersburg, Florida, dentist, was surprised when a patient's cell phone rang, and downright floored when the patient answered it. After motioning for the doc to wait, the patient chatted on his cell phone for 15 minutes while sitting in the dental chair. Dr. McCloud kicked the patient out of his office.

"Cell phones, among life's most annoying instruments, are now everywhere. They should, however, never be allowed at restaurant tables, where they annoy everybody. And I mean everybody!"
-Larry King, in USA Today

"If it's for me, I'm busy"
-Singer Jubilant Sykes, when her cell phone rang during a performance.

In a meeting at the Palace with the Queen a mobile phone goes off. Her Royal Highness: "Oh, do answer it. It may be someone important."

"Your son will get into a really embarrassing situation if his cell phone goes off while he is on the parade ground."
-The Chinese People's Liberation Army, in a plea to parents not to give cell phones, which are banned in the army, to their children who have been drafted.

"I don't know if you regard this as good news or bad news, but New York City is now gonna set up a deal whereby you can use your cell phones in the subway. I don't know, to me nothing says success like getting a call on your cell phone on the D train."
-David Letterman

Re:It's about time

[Skidge]

The hospital does make sense, but not for peace and quiet. Maybe you've never been in a hospital but they are rather noisy for most of the day. People are told to turn off cell phones because they can possibly interfere with equipment (like pacemakers).

I have actually heard (from a medical student) that the no cell phone rules are less about device interference and more about doctors getting annoyed at patients whose phones go off during exams and whatnot. There are hospitals who give the doctors cell phones rather than pagers and seem not to have problems with haywire pacemakers.

Re:It's about time

[Jucius Maximus]

"Specificly, those annoying 'tunes' that cell phones play... turn the F#$#$# things off."

I suggest you go to Phonebashing.com and have a good time. ;-)

Re:It's about time

[Dannon]

Warning: This feature not recommended when attending auctions of antiques or fine art. Your cell phone provider will not be accept liability for your accidental purchase of a $1.5 million spoon collection.

Re:It's about time

[KernelHappy]

You basically reinforced my comment that social humiliation is a much better course of action. I never stated that because your phone is on vibrate that you can just blatantly answer it and have a loud conversation wherever you are. But people do speak softly in libraries, no reason you couldn't answer a phone there as long as you're considerate about how loud you speak. Nor is there a reason why someone cannot excuse themselves from the table in a restaurant if their phone vibrates. I'm not such a social prude that I would be opposed to someone taking a QUICK call while seated at the table in a restaurant (unless I missed something you're supposed to be talking in a restaurant).

And I never said that there aren't times where we can't afford to be out of touch. All I said is who are we to make that decision for someone else without knowing all the facts. I'd agree that a phone should be turned off during an exam, both for courtosey, concentration and cheating reasons. As far as the dentist he could have just said, "please don't answer that". For the record, I left my cell phone home on the day of my wedding.

Re:It's about time

[rmohr02]

And if this was available to hospitals, libraries, theaters, etc., what would keep it from being available to me so I could disconnect people who drove by my house while on a cellphone?

Re:It's about time

[rmohr02]

That site reminds me of the person who calls in to Chatterbox in GTAIII.

Re:It's about time

[powerlord]

How about they make a phone that just vibrates like a pager? I better go patent this idea quickly before someone snaps it up! I'm a genius! Vibrating silent cell phones!

Amazing isn't it? I used to have the same problem when I was first given a pager (working for a consultanting company this was one of our normal 'kit'). Most everyone else set theirs to make one of the noises. I figured that since it was on my person, the "Silent and Vibrate" option made more sense.

1) It wouldn't bother anyone else when it went off

and ... in case you need a more selfish reason...

2) I would know when it was my device instead of the guy next to me (a pager would go off and four people would check to see if it was for them). The thing I missed the most when I got my cell-phone was that the 'silent' mode did not vibrate (it was an older Nokia and they included it as an add-on with a special battery). I'm looking forward to replacing the phone when it finally dies (wife won't let me before then :) )
JUST so I can get the same sort of functionality back. I still turn it to 'Silent' when I go into movies or other places where I don't want to b disturbed since it keeps a caller_ID record of calls I can check to see if I need to call someone back.

Common Courtesy

[ender81b]

This isn't exactly something that should be a law. It's like outlawing putting your elbows on the table,farting at the table, etc. It is simple bad manners that people need to realize. Maybe a sign 'please shut off your cell phones.' Alot of people just forget and alot of people just don't care. Fine. Use the ol' peer pressure to get them to realize that it is a damm good idea to turn off there cellphones. How much you want to bet that the person mr. fishbourne yelled at will never leave his/her cellphone on in a movie theater/play/whatever again? Than again, if I have to hear another goddam cellphone go off in a movie I just might have to kill someone. Nothing ruins a nice porn .. er movie flick than a cellphone going off.

Re:Common Courtesy

[EvanED]

"It's like outlawing putting your elbows on the table,farting at the table, etc."

Not really. If I go to a concert, I'm going -- and more importantly for this discussion, paying -- to hear a concert. Cell phones/pagers going off disrupt the experience. Your examples above would be better ones if you were paying to go somewhere to see people eat. Not just going to the restraunt, because then your main purpose is to eat, and someone else having their elbows on the table doesn't affect your eating.

Re:Common Courtesy

[NeMon'ess]

I can't ever remember wanting to hit someone really hard for putting their elbows on the table. I have wanted to do this in a movie theater.

Re:Common Courtesy

[FauxPasIII]

>> 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.)

Re:Common Courtesy

[Tokerat]

So if i fart in the resteraunt you're eating at, I should be arrested?

Disgusting, yes. Worthy of a law? Maybe in Stalanist Russia. Move out if you dont' like it, ya stiffass ;-)

Re:Common Courtesy

[EvanED]

If I'm somewhere where I'm paying to not smell something bad, yes. (BTW, you shouldn't be "arrested" any more than you're arrested for speeding. You should just get a ticket of sorts that says you need to pay a fine. Though ideally, the fine would be distributed among the rest of the audience and the performers.)

Re:Common Courtesy

[lactose99]

So if i fart in the resteraunt you're eating at, I should be arrested?

Now that depends. If your alleged fumes can reach an equivalent speed, range, and annoyance level of the sound produced by a high-volume cell phone playing Canon in D, then yes, I would sleep much better at night knowing that you are incarcerated.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Eil]

Only occasionally is my movie experience disrupted by a ringing cellphone and/or a fellow patron talking on it, however it is still obnoxious in the extreme. All of the theatres I've been to recently have had a little note on the screen (and sometimes in the dialogue) that politely asks the audience to turn off their cell phones before the movie starts. A few even had signs in the lobby that said talking on cellphones during a movie was prohibited.

However, I don't think more laws is necessarily the answer. What I would like to see is all movie theatres install a little piece of equipment[1] that broadcasts noise on the common frequencies that cell phones use. They can't be all that expensive. This way, observing the common courtesy of not talking on a friggen phone in the middle of a movie is not merely optional.

1. Yes, this has been the topic of at least one slashdot article so far.

Re:Common Courtesy

[elmegil]

The problem with this is that it will prevent anyone who 1) has the courtesy to use vibrate mode and 2) needs those frequencies because they're on call and need to get messages, from frequenting the establishment.

What we really need is some automatic protocol that phones and pagers recognized mean "this is a vibrate only zone".

Re:Common Courtesy

[susano_otter]

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".

Re:Common Courtesy

[CProgrammer98]

So as far as you;'er concerned people on call 24x7 can't go to movies or restaraunts???

That's... ummmm unfair.

There's not a problem if such people use vibrate mode on their phones/pagers.

Re:Common Courtesy

[xA40D]

This isn't exactly something that should be a law

Indeed, this is not the sort of thing which you should legislate against. However...

Common sense tells me that using a phone whilst driving is dangerous - so I don't do it. Yet every day I encounter some muppet who thinks it's reasonable to expect me to deal with their inability to drive correctly because they are on the phone.

So the law here is a necessity.

One would also think that common sense would be sufficient to get people to turn off their phones in public places. However, there are people who think the "no phone" messages don't apply to them; and they will quite happily use their phones in public. And of course being rude to people who ask them to stop is righteous behavour as it's their right to be an annoying t**t.

But a law that says they are in the wrong atleast give the rest of us ammo when we turn round and say "shut-the-F**k-up".

Re:Common Courtesy

[Zigg]

While you certainly have a point, I would have to (sadly) say that as long as people can sue (and win?!) for their supposed "right" to be in a private establishment, you're probably going to need laws, because sooner or later a the establishment's owner is going to throw one of the pricks out, and he's gonna sue the crap out of the owner unless the owner has a law to back him up.

It's really quite a pathetic situation, isn't it?

Re:Common Courtesy

[Darren Winsper]

One minute can mean the difference between life and death. Imagine this:

1) Cinema's phone rings. Somebody answers. They take the message (Can take a good 30 secs or so). They then relay the message to the usher who then needs to find the person in the cinema who then needs to get out and to their car. Person is lucky they weren't engaged.

2) Person's phone rings (Vibrates). They see it's work from caller ID. Automatically, they get up and start moving out. They get the message as they're heading out of the cinema. By the time they hang-up, they're well on their way to their car.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Jucius Maximus]

"Not really. If I go to a concert, I'm going -- and more importantly for this discussion, paying -- to hear a concert. Cell phones/pagers going off disrupt the experience. Your examples above would be better ones if you were paying to go somewhere to see people eat."

According to my sources, putting your elbows on the table is rude because, in some cultures, particularly in the past in the middle east and europe, the tables where people ate meals had very many people sitting at them in a small space.

If you put your elbows on the table, you'd be impinging (sp?) on the space of the next person because everyone was crammed in there so tightly. It was like saying, "I'm better than you so I can take up your space."

So not putting your elbows on the table was originally rude because, yes, it did reduce the next person's enjoyment of the meal. Now adays, it's considered rude because it was considered rude in the past. Just an inhereted tradition.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Jucius Maximus]

"What we really need is some automatic protocol that phones and pagers recognized mean "this is a vibrate only zone"."

I'm sure that this would cause a new undergroud market to spring up for zone-unlocked cellphones that are not overridden by vibrate only zones. </joke>

Seriously, if such a thing was enacted, it would make sense to have all phones default to following these codes, and it could only be turned off if the user specifically goes in there and finds the setting. This would have a similar effect as changing the default browser in the next windows rev to mozilla -- a massive change except in the people who really want the other mode.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Jucius Maximus]

"Point is, the messages are there, people just do not give a damn."

I remember that in the past, Famous Players used to have a real live person come out in a spotlight before the movie and remind everyone to turn of all electronic things that beep (cellphone, pagers) etc. This real person gets real attention as opposed to a coke advertisement. In such a shows, I never ever heard a phone ring.

For some reason, Famous Players does not do this anymore.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Dirtside]

At first I thought that sounded a little harsh, but then I realized that you said "incarcerated," not "incinerated." Then again, depending on the composition of the fart, and whether they use candlelight at the tables in that restaurant, "incinerated" may be the right word.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Rasta Prefect]

How much you want to bet that the person mr. fishbourne yelled at will never leave his/her cellphone on in a movie theater/play/whatever again?

The problem is that we only have one Mr. Fishbourne and so many jerks with cell phones.

Re:Common Courtesy

[geoswan]

Mine does in niagara falls and st catharines

Most of the staff who work in theatres are teenage kids, earning minimum wage, or a bit more. It is an age when you get embarrassed easily. Maybe the management lets it slide if the kids are too reluctant to do enthusiastically?

used to be a big guy who said it, he was 6'7 and his nick name was "Lurch."

You listened to him, because he said "If you leave your cell phone on, and it rings, I am going to come up there and make it not ring."

Sounds like, in Lurch, they found someone enthusiastic in Niagara Falls.

Re:Common Courtesy

[DunbarTheInept]

The fact that the announcement is buried inside the concession advertisements is *why* it gets ignored. People are in the habit of mentally filtering out advertisements subconsiously. Something independent of the ads might get more notice, like putting it up on a seperate sign, as the poster suggested.

Re:Common Courtesy

[DunbarTheInept]

Actually the reason for the taboo of elbows on tables, like many social taboos, has its roots in old methods of cleanliness and hygene that don't really apply anymore. It used to be common to eat meals without the ability to wash up first. And elbows were the dirtiest part of your arms, with all the dirt and grime buried in the wrinkled skin at the elbow joint. So in those days putting your elbow on the table meant getting the table surface dirty. And that's why it was taboo.

There is a similar taboo about shaking hands with your left hand. In times when bathing was not done frequently, people had developed a discipline of using your left hand for that stuff that might make it dirty and icky (like digging in the dirt, or wiping after, uhh, well "eliminating", and using your right hand for things that were more sanitary (like eating). And it was accepted that you don't let the two come into contact very much, for that would keep your right hand clean for tasks where you need a clean hand. (which is the origin of the phrase "don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing".) Well, because of this, offering your left hand to shake hands with someone was an insult on two different levels. On the simple level it was insulting because it meant, "Here, let me touch you with my smelly, germy hand", but on a somewhat deeper level it was even more insulting because it meant, "Like dirt and feces, I consider you something scummy and unclean that I need to use my left hand to touch, because I don't want to dirty my right hand with the likes of you." That cultural meaning persisted long after the original need for the left hand/right hand hygene discipline went away.

Re:Common Courtesy

[DunbarTheInept]

What really bothers me about cellphones is not the inital ringing. That I don't consider any more of a distraction than the occasional cough or sneeze from an audience member. What bothers me is when (and this isn't just in theatres) the person picks up the phone and starts talking right there and goes on and on and on. The continuous one-sided conversation is more distracting than the ringing.

If someone's phone goes off and they *leave* their seat to go take the call out in the hall, I have no problem with that.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Tokerat]

That takes talent and a kazoo you dont' mind throwing away afterwards, neither of which I posses.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Tokerat]

What a blatant -1 Flamebait.

SO because I am sarcastic in nature my point is invalid? Get out of my country you unintelligent tool.

That stupid attitude is exactly why we are going to lose all our rights one day: imbeciles such as yourself are nowhere near mature enough to handle them. Pity.

Did I say I like to fart in restaraunts? No. This example proves apoint: laws based on dictating common manners etc. are one of the very things the United States was formed against (read: designed to prevent). It's exactly that type of control that woudl lead to a totalitarian dictatorship, slowlyt maybe but once that door is opened, it can never be shut. History repeats itself, my friend, and it could repeat here someday. If the fact that I mock points I feel are unintellegent makes me unintellegent and immature myself and therefore worthless, what does that make you, being unwilling to be lighthearted about hypothetical situations, and mocking with a general "bad karma" tone of disgust? (Note: it's nothing good, buddy)

It's no suprise you posted annonymously.
*Farts in your general direction*

Re:Common Courtesy

[Tokerat]

Exactly. There is hope after all.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Tokerat]

Hahaha, dont' get me wrong buddy, I wouldn't do it or like it, either. But I'm sure the police have better things to do than arrest my ass for not bringing any Beano with me.

Re:Common Courtesy

[Darren Winsper]

Hospitals can be overcrowded at the best of times. If there's an accident and about 20 injured come pouring in, they're likely to call in as many doctors as they can.

A hypothetical future scenario.

[Teknogeek]

The Time: December 18th, 2002
The Place: A theater in New York City

Gandalf the White: "I come back to you now..."
Some idiot's cell phone: RING RING RING!!!
Usher (to idiot): "You're under arrest."
Patrons: "Whoo-hoo!"

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[rde]

As I was watching LotR in the cinema, it occurred to me early on that some fucker'd probably have his phone going off at a critical moment. Sure enough, just as (don't read this if you don't know Boromir died) Boromir was giving his dying speech, the phone went off. The well-poisoning motherfucker didn't turn it off or answer it; he just pretended it wasn't his, and the entire cinema was treated to the entire tune. I wasn't close enough to berate him and/or her, and I didn't hear anyone else do it either. They probably got away with it.

Then there's last night, when not only did some wench get a call during Eight-Legged Freaks[1], she answered and carried out a loud conversation.

Why do I mention these? Because they're illustrative of the sort of asshole that's endemic these days; the sort who doesn't give a shit, and who can only be controlled by laws and/or 2x4s. And as they'd go whining to the cops if you larted them, making it illegal to have the ring tone enabled on your phone while in a theatre. I've nothing against vibrators (so to speak), as long as the user leaves the cinema to answer any call deemed important.

[1].Interestingly, the film's called "Eight Legged Freaks" sans hyphen, and had me rushing to the cinema to see a film about eight freaks with legs. I was bitterly disappointed, and not just because it was a shite film.

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[dillon_rinker]

This is when you go to the theater management and demand a refund. If everyone would do this, theater management would implement anti-phone policies (ie "By buying this ticket, you agree to do really unpleasant things if you disturb other patrons.")

The theater I generally go to has a blurb they show before every movie asking people to turn off their cell phones.

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[rodgerd]

Take the cellphone off her.

Seriously.

I, too had the "Moron in LoTR" experience - the guy kept playing with his phone (checking for messages, for chrissake). Since he had one of those ultra-bright blue screen Nokia 8000 series phone, it was not only beeping away, but light enough to be irritating. Worse, after I had to tell him for the second time to quit fucking with his phone he had the cheek to act puzzled and hurt about it.

Some people shouldn't allowed out in public. At least he stopped after the second time, cause I'm sure he wouldn't have enjoyed watching his tiny little phone sailing over the balcony...

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Why do I mention these? Because they're illustrative of the sort of asshole that's endemic these days; the sort who doesn't give a shit, and who can only be controlled by laws and/or 2x4s. "

Funny you should mention that. When I saw MiiB, somebody brought a laser pointer and started playing pong on the screen with it during the previews. After about 15 seconds, some bloke shouted "You do that again and I'm going to break your arm!"

When the applause died down, and the movie started, no red dots were to be seen. Problem solved.

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[Jucius Maximus]

"I wasn't close enough to berate him and/or her, and I didn't hear anyone else do it either. They probably got away with it."

You should have sicked these guys on the jerk.

Re:A hypothetical future scenario.

[cafebabe]

Not a cell phone thing, but when I went to see SW: AOTC the opening weekend the guy next to me would not shut up during the beginning of the movie. I politely asked him to be quiet and he said that he had paid for a ticket and would talk as much as he goddamned wanted. In my most syrupy-sweet voice I said that yes, he could talk as much as he goddamned wanted but that this theater was full of fanboys who had been waiting months to see this movie and might want to shut up if he didn't want to get his ass kicked. A few men I didn't know sitting near me turned around and said "you should really listen to her because I'd help" and that was the end of that.
I just wish it was that easy all of the time.

Legislating everything under the sun

[Platinum Dragon]

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.

Re:Legislating everything under the sun

[Anonvmous Coward]

I think it's funny that we won't let the RIAA/MPAA lock up computers to enforce their laws, but when our 'oh so precious movies' are at stake, executions are warranted.

Funny that.

Maybe it's time

[whirred]

When I went to see Storytelling, the new Todd Solondz movie, this one guy in the theater had his phone ring. He answered. Not in a hushed tone, and not to say anything like "I'm in a movie, can't talk" and hanging up.

He spent several minutes talking at a fairly audible volume saying things like "Nothing much, just watching a movie".

The audience was hissing at him, shushing him, and finally someone shouted "Would you please get off the fucking phone?"

The guy kept talking for another minute, then got off the phone, then took off. Needless to say, it fucked up that part of the movie pretty badly.

Because not enough people have the common courtesy to TURN THEIR PHONE OFF during movies and performances, perhaps a nice stiff fine of around 250 - 500 dollars per incident would keep things under control.

Banning cell phone use in cars is just stupid. Maybe it's because I'm from the bay area, but using a cell phone while driving is a god given right as far as I'm concerned, as long as you remember to pay full attention to the road. If they're going to ban cell phones while driving, they need to ban radios, conversations and other passengers altogether, especially children.

All of these can be more distracting than cell phones.

Re:Maybe it's time

[DEBEDb]

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

Re:Maybe it's time

[silentbozo]

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

Re:Maybe it's time

[EvanED]

>>it's because I'm from the bay area, but using a cell phone while driving is a god given right as far as I'm concerned, as long as you remember to pay full attention to the road.

Which is nearly impossible for the brain, as numerous scientific studies have shown.

>>If they're going to ban cell phones while driving, they need to ban radios

You listen to a radio only. Unless you're using a cell phone to call in. Listening to music (or even a talk/news show) is far different from carrying on a conversation.

>>conversations and other passengers altogether,

Conversations with other passengers aren't as dangerous, because if you for instance start to swirve, the other person can go "look out" while the guy at the other end of the phone will keep yakking away because he doesn't know any better, and your brain will try - and fail - to both concentrate on the phone call and correct the situation. Pretty much the only exception to this is small children.

Re:Maybe it's time

[liquidsin]

I don't think the state-wide ban in NY is on using a cell while driving, it's on using the handset. If you use a hands-free, you're fine. It's always the idiots trying to hold the phone to their ear while shifting, eating a doughnut, flipping the radio stations or changing cds, and drinking a coffee that forget to steer the fucking car.

Re:Maybe it's time

[silentbozo]

In high school, when I worked in a movie theatre, the ushers were there to let people in, and to clean up afterwards. Unless someone complains, there usually won't be anyone from the theatre staff in there to notice, especially in a multiplex, where they have 5 people trying to manage 10 different crowds coming in and out.

The idea of of the law, I think, is to put limits on the usage of cellphones, especially for the clueless who assume that if there isn't a law against it, they can do whatever they wan't. Well, thanks to them, there's now a law...

Re:Maybe it's time

[NeMon'ess]

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.

Re:Maybe it's time

[EvanED]

>>Talking on a cell phone is in no way anymore dangerous than fiddling with a CD player, changing radio stations, or talking to other passengers. These "numerous studies" you mention either don't exist or are likely quite biased.

Actually, I've done research in the past on this, and there are several good studies carried out by universities. Most have a strong corrolation between cell phone use and dangerous driving (inconsistant speeds, tailgating, not stopping for red lights, swirving). Most put the risk at approximately that of driving while intoxicated. If you'd like, I can site a few of these studies. (I didn't go looking for them now because I have the slight impression that you'd ignore them...)

>>Statistics can prove any aspect of any argument, as can "numerous studies".

In that case, they also couldn't prove that it's safe to drive. So now we're left with speculation. In which case, the proper course of action would be to prohibit them.

As a computer user, perhaps you've noticed that defaults in dialog boxes and whatnot almost always default to the least-dangerous option (e.g., 'yes' or 'cancel' in a "Save before quitting?" dialog). Basic rule of HCI. Needs to be followed elsewhere. NASA abandoned this policy during the evening of January 27, 1986; the next day, because of it, seven people were dead, the US was down a space shuttle, and the nation came to a standstill unlike anything since the Kennedy assassination. (I'm referring to NASA's demanding proof it was unsafe to fly the shuttle or else they would fly, rather than their normal procedure of demanding proof that it was safe to fly, or else they wouldn't, a change several people commented on in the proceedings that followed.)

Therefore we must look at the dangers of banning cell phones -- making a usually minor inconvienience to people who would have to pull over to make a phone call -- versus the danger of not banning cell phones -- the chance of significant numbers of people losing their lives. Then we must pick the least dangerous of the choices. In this case, this is clearly the former.

(Run the same thing with leaving other people out of the car would end up with the opposite result. I'll get to radio in a moment.)

>>I think having conversations with passengers is easily more dangerous, as anyone here can agree with me on, because you are more likely to make gestures or attempt eye contact.

The problem while driving is not losing eye contact, it's getting it. The part of your retina that can see well enough to make informed decisions is about the size of a quarter held a arms length. Therefore you must actively scan the entire view. Conversation -- cell phone or in person -- interferes with this scanning. The eye contact you'd make while talking lasts only a very short time, and thus does not contribute much to the dangers of driving.

>>As for radios - no one "listen[s] to radio only". They often channel surf whenever commericals come on, or they fast forward or skip songs on their radios.

First, I'm not sure how accurate your statement is. I listen to programs regardless of commercials. So do my friends/family. Even so, this goes back to the length of the distraction. After getting used to the positions of the controls, the length of time it takes to operate them is fairly small. (I can usually do it without even looking, though that still doesn't get me off the hook, for the same reason that conversation interferes with eye movement.) That said, changing radio stations is one of the most common reasons for a crash caused by distractions.

(Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if radio, when you're not fiddling with it, is relaxing and therefore beneficial.)

>>I have nothing against kids and obviously they can't be banned, but I have seen more people distracted while driving by their offspring than cell phones at all.

I'll agree here too. But again, your argument is flawed because it's in the form "action B is more dangerous than action A, therefore action A isn't a problem."

Re:Maybe it's time

[Eil]

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:Maybe it's time

[tester13]

as a NYC resident I can tell you the ban is only on handheld phones. If you are using a headset, that is legal.

Re:Maybe it's time

[Colz Grigor]

You listen to a radio only.

Hi. I'm the idiot singing along to the radio in the car next to you. Anyone who just listens to their music needs to learn to get more fulfilment from it.

The fact that I sing to the radio when I drive doesn't nullify your point all by itself... the fact is that I probably pay better attention to driving when I'm on my cellphone (hands free) then when I'm using my steering wheel as a snare and high hat...

::Colz Grigor

Re:Maybe it's time

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

These "numerous studies" you mention either don't exist or are likely quite biased.

That's the ticket: If someone discovers something that interferes with your preconceived notions, there must be an error, bias, or malice. There's certainly no way that your cherished behavior might actually be dangerous.

Look, I don't know if the studies referenced are in fact valid. Maybe they did have a flaw or a bias. But it's wrong to dismiss them simply because they don't match your narrow, anecdotal evidence. The reason for having science is that narrow, anecdotal experience is often misleading. Especially in the case of driving, it's easy to demonstrate that almost everyone overestimates their own skill and underestimates the role that of distracting or disabiling factors.

As for the assertion:

As for radios - no one "listen[s] to radio only". They often channel surf whenever commericals come on, or they fast forward or skip songs on their radios.

it is patently and provably false, as I am a counterexample.

Re:Maybe it's time

[dadragon]

(I can usually do it without even looking, though that still doesn't get me off the hook, for the same reason that conversation interferes with eye movement.) That said, changing radio stations is one of the most common reasons for a crash caused by distractions.

How long 'till somebody gets the bright idea to make a car radio which can't be adjusted while the car is in gear? That'd actually be kind of neat, from an engineering point of view.. if it were me, I'd add a switch like the one in new VWs that keep it from being started when it's in gear. Of course, smart people will figure out that all you need to do is put your car in neutral to change radio stations :)

Re:Maybe it's time

[alcmena]

Just put the controls on the steering wheel. A friend of mine's car has the ability to skip through the pre-programmed stations with buttons on the wheel right next to the cruise control. I believe it has volume controls there too, but I won't swear to that one.

Re:Maybe it's time

[tshak]

Which is nearly impossible for the brain, as numerous scientific studies have shown.


This is not quite true. This is only for people who prioritize the phone call. I've litterally dropped my phone when I've needed to concentrate on the road.

Conversations with other passengers aren't as dangerous, because if you for instance start to swirve, the other person can go "look out"

IF that person is paying attention. This is pure speculation. This is just as bad as talking on a cell phone, but culturally people seem to prioritize cell phone calls more. However, I can't tell you how many times I've driven behind someone who is obviously not paying attention and when I pass them they are obviously heavily engaged in a conversation with a passenger. Actually, because I have a tendancy to look people in the eye when I talk I actually turn my head while I talk sometimes - at least on a cellphone it's easier for me to keep my eyes on the road.

This all being said, I still try to keep my phone usage to an absolute minumum while driving.

Re:Maybe it's time

[EvanED]

>>What study is that?? I for one have no problem with dropping the phone on the passenger seat if I need to put that hand back on the wheel.

Apparently you've never been in a situation where you needed to react quckly to events, like cars cutting you off, or braking in front of you. You THINK you can drive and call, but the truth is that few people can. I'll cite studies in a later reply.

>>Phones are only OK if you're calling the radio station. HELLO??!!!

I never said it was okay to use a cell phone to call the radio staion. My point was that radio isn't ever interactive unless you call into the show you're listening to.

>>Look, truckers have been using CB's for decades without smashing into each other mid-conversation. Cellphones are hardly different.

Have you heard a typical "conversation" btw people driving with CBs? They're almost never more than a few seconds. A quick report on the road conditions, warnings about speed traps, etc. You don't get people "Well, do you want to do to dinner tonight? How 'bout tommorrow? OK, where?" or "Listen, I need five 10,000 cfm pumps at the physical plant by tomorrow! I don't care if you have other work to do, if those pumps aren't there by tommorrow, we lose our contract."

>>Anyone that just can't seem to drive amidst distraction probably shouldn't be on the road at all. Case in point; every highway in eastern Mass. There are enough distractions to screw up a monk whether you're on the phone or not.

There aren't any that continuously divert your attention for 5 minutes at a time.

>>Legislating what people may or may not do while driving is not the answer

Then we might as well get rid of all traffic laws; after all, people know how fast is safe in certain conditions, and that you should stop at intersections until you can go, and that you can't cross paths with oncoming traffic.

Too many laws are stupid .....

[reaper20]

Some RIAA nut said "DMCA, that law should be enacted everywhere.", now look what happened.

I prefer Laurence's method. Group humiliation of stupid people is always entertaining.

duct-tape people's mouths shut too...

[mitzman]

I don't know how much this irritates other people, but cell phones in theaters are the worst. I was out seeing Signs a few weeks ago and during some of the most suspensful scenes someone's cell phone would go off. Damnit I hate that. It just ruins the essence of the film.

Now this doesn't stop people from talking. Sitting behind me were 4 people, 3 girls and 1 guy. They wouldn't shut the hell up! I mean, an insightful or sarcastic comment every now and then is ok, but carrying on a conversation (and one that didn't have anything to do with the movie) is just down-right rude. I sure don't pay $9 to hear someone else talk about the itch that appeared after sleeping with a guy, or the test they cheated on in school. The solution: They should have a duct tape dispenser at the ticket-taker booth and every single person should have their mouths taped shut. There we go, a solution to all the problems.

Re:duct-tape people's mouths shut too...

[NeMon'ess]

But you just said a comment every once in a while is okay. I'm not liking the idea that I'm taped up too for what I MIGHT do.

Re:duct-tape people's mouths shut too...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

every single person should have their mouths taped shut.

But then they wouldn't be able to buy the $5 Cokes. How do you expect the poor MPAA people to be able to afford to eat, with that and the existence of DeCSS and DVD region hacks?

;)

Better than cell phone jammers

[serps]

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.

Re:Better than cell phone jammers

[EvanED]

>>If you are getting jammed, the worst that can happen is that you can't call 911 when you have to

We went over this when that conversation was on. Theaters have pay phones; 911 is a free call. If the time it takes someone to get to the pay phone makes a difference in your survival, the chance you would have made it anyway is very, very slim. In fact, until they get that location locator system set up, using a pay phone very well could be quicker than making a cell phone call.

Re:Better than cell phone jammers

[jsse]

The use of jammer is illegal in some place like UK as it'd cause interference outside the building.

In fact there are other solution which uses magnetic wood built around the theatre to block phone signals.

Of course, legislation is perferrable by theatres owners, and you can see why. :)

Re:Better than cell phone jammers

[EvanED]

>>Sure something like that would be an isolated case, but you have ot bare in my mind here there are times when cell phones really really are important

And for those times there's the lobby.

Re:Better than cell phone jammers

[DNS-and-BIND]

I commute daily by bus from Parsippany, N.J. to New York City. The horror stories are endless and the bus company, Lakeland, has done nothing about curbing extreme behavior, designating quiet buses or establishing quiet zones within buses. They have a big sign that reads, essentially, "pretty please with sugar on it, don't be obnoxious." Cell phone hooligans blithely ignore it. The worst of the worst go unfettered and we have a problem that is way, way, way out of control.

I once politely but firmly asked a young woman, talking loudly on an otherwise quiet morning commute, to quiet down. About half the riders were trying to catch a nap. She responded by saying I'd better shut my mouth, because she'd charge harassment. She also said she might get an emergency call from her kid. She proceeded to do her own harassing, talking five times louder and leaving messages elsewhere, thus inducing return calls.

A yuppie got on another morning ride, called his friend and talked loudly about weekend plans. Beleaguered, I asked him to please quiet down. He smirks and says, "Yeah, and why don't you look the other way and turn up your headset loud. And while you're at it, go get a life."

Another guy was loud, and I asked him to please be more quiet. He responded by taunting me in his phone conversation with the other party. ("This man won't let me talk ... Oh, he's mean ...")

An older man, on the ride home, screamed about his phone bill. A young man next to him asked for some courtesy; the guy yells, "Tough!! If you don't like it put on your headset!!"

Re:Better than cell phone jammers

[rmohr02]

Yes, but there are times when one minute (possibly the time it takes to find a payphone) longer before the patient reaches the hospital can mean life or death. Granted, most of these times are in the movies, but I'm sure there are some in real life. Also, I would try my cellphone first. When it didn't work, I'd try again, then curse it and run for a payphone. This could take more than a minute.

Bah

[GrumpyYoYoHead]

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

Re:Bah

[foo12]

Then have the common courtesy not to bring a baby into places were quiet is the generally accepted norm: theaters, "nice" restraunts, etc.

Re:Bah

[sulli]

Like the author of this bill?

Re:Bah

[ShavenYak]

Picture this. "Cats & Dogs," a boring little film with talking cats and dogs.

Do you typically go see "boring little films" for entertainment? Anyway, when you go see a G rated movie, you run the risk of annoying kids, and you should factor that risk into your decision of whether to see the movie in a theater or wait for it on video. You might also consider looking for theaters which are still showing it at 9 or 10 on a weeknight, when there will be less kids.

Now, concealed carrying laws being what they are in Canada, I'm left with little redress, illegal or otherwise.

I know (or hope!) that you're exaggerating there, and that you don't think shooting a mother and her three-year-old kid is an appropriate response to you missing a minute or so of a film you think is boring anyway. But the fact that someone would suggest that, even in jest, is a good reason why handguns should not be in everyone's possession.

So, the very least I can do is ask them to leave. I'm not out of line, am I? Obviously, Mother thinks that i am. "She's only three. Get a life!"

I'll agree with you that she is at best an irresponsible parent, and at worst a seething bitch. But I have to agree with her that if you spent money to see Cats and Dogs, you need a life. ;)

What is the solution? Better fucking manners, that's what. If your child younger than six wants to watch a movie, there is a wonderful invention: the DVD player.

Absolutely true. I don't plan on taking our kid to a movie until she's at least six or seven. I think I was six when I saw Star Wars, and I remember being somewhat bored by it until around the cantina scene. Young children don't have the two-hour attention span needed to enjoy a movie anyway.

That said, going to a G-rated movie and complaining about the kids is like going to the doctor and complaining about the pain you experience when you punch yourself in the face. The wonderful invention of the DVD player would probably be a better way for you to have experienced the cinematic genius of Cats and Dogs as well. Just think, you wouldn't have been pestered by the kid, and you would have avoided the embarassment of being seen buying your ticket!

Re:Bah

[sharkey]

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

Solution: Check the theater for baseball players BEFORE buying a ticket.

Yelling

[EvanED]

"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!'"

I wish I was there for that...

Re:Yelling

[digitalsushi]

Can anyone think of something more publically embarassing than this? Could you imagine the trip home with your friends after getting chewed out by Morpheus himself? "Free your mind, but not your weekend minutes"

Re:Yelling

[Tokerat]

Yea, did anyone sneak a video camera in and bootleg it?

...fuck that's illegal too, huh...

Re:Yelling

[DNS-and-BIND]

How unprofessional. I thought actors were supposed to "go on with the show" no matter what happens or what distractions present themselves. Using profanity as well - isn't using profanity to make a point the mark of the uneducated and vulgar? I hope the theatergoers didn't take away a bad impression from his rash action.

Even getting a standing O from the crowd is uncomfortably vulgar and provincial as well - I'd expect those sort of feelings to be more appropriate to a lynch mob than a sophisticated, educated Broadway audience.

Rights

[rat7307]

Sign in theatre:

Patrons have the right to have their mobile telephones/pagers on in this theater as long as they agree that other patron have the right to pour Coke (or similar) over the phone users head

Happy all round!!

Re:Rights

[EvanED]

That would be fine with me. Or perhaps "Patrons have the right to have their mobile telephones/pagers on in this theater as long as they agree that other patrons may grab said phone and hurl it across the room as hard as they can and want."

Re:Rights

[Hektor_Troy]

I saw this happening at the opening night of The Phantom Menace.

*Start rolling text intro*
*ring* *ring*
"Hello, this is ... HEY!!!"
"He can't talk right now. DUCK!!!"
*saw little black object fly across the screen*
"CRASH!!!"
*got hit by a piece of plastic*
*loud cheering*

The Gov't should not need to be involved

[ellem]

Very simple way to fix this without wasting a legislators (read MY TAX $) time.

You own a theater. You make a rule (not a law) that says.: NO CELL PHONES, BEEPERS, ET AL ALLOWED.

I really don't see why the government needs to be involved here. Cell phones in cars, dangerous, cell phones in theaters annoying. Let the theater owners deal with this.

Or have Vin Diesel act in a B'Way show and have him beat the shit out of the first hickory assed scumbag who gets a phone call. Suddenly cell phone useage in a Theater will seem like a bad idea.

Story Time

[Monkelectric]

Few years ago during "the college years", I was taking Math 46, Differentials. For some reason cell phones would ring EVERY day in class, sometimes two or three times. The teacher was *quite* annoyed but he was being far too polite about the whole mess.

One day, a phone rings and it was the scooby doo theme, my buddy next to me says "FAAAAG!!!" and the whole class bursts out laughing. The next day another phone rings and I yell "FAAAAAAG!!!". This went on for about two weeks until everyone got the picture: Turn your phone off or the entire class is going to laugh at you and call you a fag.

Social pressure really worked in this case, people started using vibrate mode, and it was a good thing.

So to Laurence Fishburne: way to go!

(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 :)

Re:Story Time

[Monkelectric]

"you have admitted to taking part in this?" I'm fucking braging about it :)

You need to take back your mind from the TV.

Re:Story Time

[clifyt]

Yeah, but us wops have never cared what others have called us. Its never like we've been oppressed for very long...unlike the others. For the same reason, Honkey was never an offensive word to us whities (though at one point, my dad tells me, wops and whities were not considered the same...not that any of my family ever cares).

The fact of the matter is, the other words are hurtful to others and should be respected and used with care.

clif

Re:Story Time

[Swaffs]

Good story. Not sure if that'll catch on in Broadway theatres or not though...

Re:Story Time

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

But in the end, we don't give a shit anymore. We got a decent living in the end, you can call us anything you want. [emphasis added]

And isn't that the difference? Now that being a "WOP" is no longer a source of much discrimination, it makes sense that being called one isn't as offensive. I wonder how many "I-talians" felt as forgiving as you do now, back durng the days "you couldn't get XYZ job if your name ended in a vowel".

I'm third-generation Irish-American. I don't give a plug nickel if someone calls me "mick" -- indeed, I'd probably laugh it off the same way you do. But in my father's day, in working-class Greepoint, Brooklyn, it'd be enough to start a tussle. Why? Because at that point, we hadn't "made it" yet.

It's easy, when you've "made it", to scoff at this sensitivity and say, " Self-esteem folks, Go get some." But that's nothing something you can buy at the corner store... and it isn't gotten by edict.

Tell me this... If you didn't think it offended to call someone "fag" -- if words don't mean anything -- then why was it funny?

Re:Story Time

[ShavenYak]

It's perhaps not a good idea to yell "FAAAG" if the play you're seeing is Rent.

Re:Story Time

[ShavenYak]

And fags can call each other fags but if you are straight you can't... well that is another topic for PC fags to argue about.

Yes, this social issue was touched on by South Park, during the SHIT episode. Mr. Garrison could say fag because he was gay. Everyone else got bleeped out (except Stan's uncle Jimbo, who was quite shocked when he didn't get bleeped).

Re:Story Time

[Jucius Maximus]

"Turn your phone off or the entire class is going to laugh at you and call you a fag."

Well done ... I think this stragey is good but there is a better one. This one prof I had really couldn't stand cell phones so at the start of every class (that is the first day of every course he taught, not at the start of every lecture in the year) he said something like "... and oh yeah, if cell phones ring in my class I tend to go berzerk." And interestingly, in over 80+ hours of class with him and plenty of lab time too, there was exactly one cell phone ring in the whole time.

Geez, wrong law!

[Devil's BSD]

They should ban fat people first who block out the whole theater's view. Cell phones are just a momentary distraction, whereas that fat lady in front of you blocks out the whole movie the whole time! And don't even get me started on those girls who, like, talk, like the whole time, ya know?, and ... get the picture? what-ever.

Sense of proportion needed

[DoctorFrog]

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.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[freeweed]

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.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I thought the very same thing about smoking in restaurants, before my city enacted a smoking ban. Why didn't some enterprising type open up a chain of non-smoking restaurants, seeing as (according to statistics) 75% of people don't smoke, and an overwhelming majority of people say they'd rather not have smoking in restaurants?

It never happened. A few places went non-smoking, did decent business, but I guess not enough to warrant more restaurants doing it on their own. The city ended up with the ban (so far you can still smoke in bars and lounges here, so it's sorta half-ass), and most people think it's been a roaring success.

As much as I hate to say it, sometimes it seems that legislation is the only way for people's behaviour to change. Most people wanted smoke-free eating, but without a law, it was never going to happen. Same goes for cell-phones, I'd imagine. Even though I think most people make way too big a deal out of it - I hear more screaming/crying infants in most places I go, and that lasts a lot more than the 10 seconds a phone ring does, but NO ONE in their right mind has proposed a ban on children at public performances - at least not yet.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[mozumder]

Well, the proposed fine is $50, not jail time.

For a better sense of proportion, consider the cost of the interrupted play - 500 people in a theatre at $25/ticket, having had the performance ruined by a cell phone ring.

A $50 ticket is reasonable.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[freeweed]

Strangely enough, I'm *from* Winnipeg, and that's where I was talking about :)

There are still a lot of places that ban minors now to get past the smoking ban, but it's mostly pool halls and such... less public outcry.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[xintegerx]

There's a huge difference between enacting a law to preserve public saftey and enacting one to prevent morons from annoying you.

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

[Capsaicin]

It is not the government's role to change people's behavior.

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.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[DoctorFrog]

Banning smoking in public places falls under the rubric of preventing a public danger. It's not merely obnoxious, it is a health hazard. While I didn't see a lot of purely non-smoking restaurants or bars prior to the rash of legislation, many (most) provided a non-smoking section simply because it was good business practice.

Banning young children from certain performances is already done in some theatres, for some performances. Sometimes this is because the performance is unsuitable for children, but often it is specifically to avoid possible disruptions. This happens even more often with certain kinds of musical performances.

I suspect that the owners of those theatres are as much in their right minds as any who do allow children; in many cases they are the same venues, applying different rules to different performances. In the former case they estimate that they please their intended audience better by excluding children, in the latter by including them. There's no law involved or needed in either case.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[sehryan]

$25 / ticket? Where in the world do you live, so I can make sure I never go there.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[DoctorFrog]

Other immoral, anti-social functions besides this exist--for example, stealing.

Which is precisely why I don't want the courts to be tied up with more people trying to argue their way out of a fine, instead of getting on with more important cases. I do not consider a thief robbing me to be on the same level as an imbecile failing to turn off a cell phone. In the latter case I can make a difference more directly without calling on the force of government, simply by patronizing theatres which have a no-audible-alert policy, and asking the theatre for my money back if they fail to enforce it.

It wouldnt take many people doing that before the theatres started seriously throwing the bums out for disrupting the performance. Meanwhile cases of theft will be being dealt with by a fractionally less harried and overworked legal system.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Jucius Maximus]

"...but NO ONE in their right mind has proposed a ban on children at public performances - at least not yet."

I haven't heard of this either, but keep in mind that at the Sydney Opera House (in .au of course) they specifically tell you before a performance no to cough. The acoustics in the building are designed such that you can hear everything.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[ShavenYak]

Legislate against idiots, a good proportion of Americans won't be allowed out on the streets :)

You say that like it would be a bad thing....

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[monkeydo]

The people who are using the law to force behavior on the minority always think it is a success when they are able to compel others to do their wishes. How do the 25% of the population that smokes feel about the ban?

The reason restaurants didn't go to full bans on their own was because they weren't willing to write off 25% of the population -- and the non-smokers dining with them -- unless everybody else was too. If it had been profitable they would have done it, but there wasn't a demand to be satisfed. You might not remember when the non-smoking sections of restaurants were the tiny area at the back near the kitchen. That changed because of a demand. There was no demand for full smoking ban except from those trying to control other's behavior. In this area the restaurant owners all fought a ban (that was passed anyway) because they were afraid it would hurt business.

Back on topic, this law is rediculous and will never get pass the first court test. If a theater owner wants to kick out cellphone users, or make them check their phones at the front then by all means, but the city has no authority to tell people that they must have good manners. Theater managers don't do this because it would be disruptive and inconvinient. What are they going to do when the ban is in place, have cops with ticket books standing in the aisles waiting to write tickets when a phone rings? What's next a law against talking to your neighbor during the show?

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Lemmy Caution]

Theater. Live performance. You know, actors on a stage? Tickets for small theaters are typically about $25 - for major productions, well over a hundred.

Tell me where you live so that I can make sure I never go there.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[monkeydo]

I though you were a moron for comparing cell phones to rape and murder, and then I read your sig and realized it must be an attempt at irony. Of course talking on a cell phone in a theater causes bodily harm to no one, but you are incorrect that existing statute provides no relief. Theaters can make (almost)whatever rules they want ans kick out anyone who isn't following them.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[jedidiah]

Petty inconvenience does not equate to "suffering". There is no "right" involved here. There is no issue of life, liberty or property in the balance here. This is just about a bunch of hypocrites that are happy to impose their will upon others.

The statement is absolutely true as a categorical imperative. It stumbles upon the real purpose of government in a republic: to preserve the liberties of all, equally.

That particular categorical imperative is true with a few limited exceptions and Lawrence being annoyed simply isn't one of the acceptable exceptions.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[jedidiah]

He has a right not to have his life endangered in public places.

"where ever he wants" is not the issue here and is simply a red herring.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[jedidiah]

What "anti-drinking" movement? A drunk doesn't bother others around him merely by his presence. A drunk doesn't effect a large area besides that which he occupies. Why just stop at smoking? Why not allow anyone that wants to wander around with a lit cannister of CS gas strapped to their waist.

If someoene can't stand to languish an hour or so without gassing the rest of the restaurant, perhaps it's time they seriously contemplated quitting.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[leucadiadude]

Just count the number of derivatives of "I" in his message. Says it all right there.....

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Computer!]

Smoking is no different than crapping on the street?

I would say your post is no different to crapping on my computer screen. Now, get over here and clean it up.

You mean I don't have the right to go around spewing disgusting, unsafe pollution wherever the hell I want?

Drive a car? Then shut up.

Control your urge until you get home junkie.

Make me. Funny thing, smokers actually tend to be more considerate people than our non-smoking counterparts. Just ask any waitress: "Who tips better?" While we huddle outside in the heat/cold to protect your "health" (like exposure to one secondhand cigarette a week makes a bit of difference), pay millions a year in taxes to fund your governments, and have to sit through countless ads telling us how our perfectly legal activity is harming everyone and killing puppies, we still have to listen to comfort nazis like yourself. We'll quit when we're ready, or maybe never, when we die from cancer. Last time I checked, the sign on the door said "America".

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Computer!]

You can choose where to breathe, yet I can't choose where to smoke. So, you're wrong, and a coward.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[UncleFluffy]

He has a right not to have his life endangered in public places.

Last time I checked, most bars and restaurants were private property.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[susano_otter]

Aren't ya' glad your parents decided to "spawn"?

Why should I be? There's no benefit I gain from existing that would even be necessary if I didn't exist. Given the huge cost involved, I certainly hope my parents are glad they decided to spawn! Me? I'm simply trying to make the best of a situation I didn't ask for, had little or no control over during the formative period (say, inception-to-adulthood), and would never have missed if I'd never been born (since there would be no "me" to miss things). So while I do enjoy my life more than not, I can't find any logical reason to be grateful for my own instantiation.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[susano_otter]

Maybe you should spell it out for me, since I don't see what your point is at all. As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that a) self-centeredness is bad, and that b) having children and/or tolerating other people's children is a valuable improvement over this self-centeredness. Neither clause seems obviously correct to me.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[DoctorFrog]

You do not consider it the same because you probably don't attend theaters often and robbery of material goods affects you more.

Where you got this from I don't know; I go to the theatre pretty often, actually, and I'm hardly ever robbed. The performances at my favorite local theatre are rarely interrupted because there is a no audible alert policy which the management reiterates before each performance, stating that offenders will be ejected without appeal. Don't tell me this kind of policy doesn't work, because I see it in action all the time and it does. It requires that the management take the issue seriously, and the only people who can make that happen are the customers. You know, the ones who actually provide the money that pays for the show.

I don't know what kind of half-assed theatres you patronise, but the ones I go to make serious efforts to ensure that the audience has a positive experience. I have to wonder, have you ever even tried asking for your money back, or even complained to the theatre management? Or did you merely assume that they wouldn't do so? Remember, theatres depend on repeat customers. If it's made apparent to them that they will lose custom unless the no-audible-alert policy is enforced, they will enforce it.

Chances are very good that they will listen to your complaint and take it seriously, and will in fact refund your money if the performance was disrupted. Few of the patrons are likely to abuse the policy, because most people will appreciate the efforts made to please the audience. At the very least, the theatre is going to try to please the majority because they want repeat business!

Try it. Next time a cell phone goes off, complain, and if you don't get satisfaction, ask for a refund. If you don't get one, write to the local paper and any local business organizations the theatre belongs to. Be an active force instead of waiting for the government to take care of every little niggle in your life. Buck the trend of insisting on your personal helplessness at every turn! You'll be amazed how easy it is to actually make a difference, especially when you're dealing with people who want you to give them money.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[susano_otter]

Okay, let's talk about you for a moment: you seem to believe that "spawning" is a good thing. Care to give some reasons in support of your opinion?

After all (if I may talk about myself for just a few pixels more), I did submit a few vaguely coherent arguments in support of my own views. Or does the "consideration for others" that you're so proud of teaching your children not extend to your own self?

[blonde]
tee-hee
[/blonde]

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Capsaicin]

I though you were a moron for comparing cell phones to rape and murder

You evidently misread what I wrote. What I said was that a statement 'it is not the government's role to change people's behaviour,' fails as a catagorical statement. eg. 'It is not the government's role to stop people killing other people.'

You might note that this was completely separate from the particular issue of cell-phone bans addressed in the previous paragraph. There was no comparison of "cell phones to rape and murder." That would be comparing apples and oranges, rape and murder after all, are crimes, a cell phone is an appliance.

... then I read your sig and realized it must be an attempt at irony

I'm not completely satisfied that you have comprehended the point Goethe was making either.

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[Capsaicin]

There is no "right" involved here. There is no issue of life, liberty or property in the balance here. This is just about a bunch of hypocrites that are happy to impose their will upon others.

You are quite possibly correct. Indeed nothing I said is meant to express support for the law. I was merely making the point that this law does not, in the abstract, offend against the basic ideology of the liberal-democratic state (and please don't read 'liberal' in the modern US colloquial use here).

It is, however, at least arguable that where patrons have incurred an expenditure for the purposes of enjoyment, an interference with that enjoyment constitutes an expropriation. You'll notice the obvious parallels to the reasoning of Lord Denning in the Mikhail Lermontov here.

The statement is absolutely true as a categorical imperative. ... That particular categorical imperative is true with a few limited exceptions.

I'm confused as to which of these contradictory positions you actually wish to espose. Do you insist that government has no role in stopping (or disuading) citizens from engaging in violence towards one and other?

Re:Sense of proportion needed

[monkeydo]

I didn't misread what you wrote, but perhaps your point is unclear.

You disagree with the OP contention that, "It is not the government's role to change people's behavior," refering to cell phone usage. You support your position with counter examples where the state does attempt through statute to change violent behavior. Ignoring for a moment that you have not demonstrated by any measure that these existing statutes are in fact beneficial to society you are placing this law in the same category: laws that attempt to change malfeasant behavior.

I assumed you were attempting to make your argument reductio ad ridiculum since clearly cell phone users do not have a societal ompact in the same class as those who commit violence. There is clearly a need for society to regulate physical harm caused to another person, but there is no clear need for society to protect your right to hear the movie.

I'm not completely satisfied that you have comprehended the point Goethe was making either.

I understand the point from the position of one desiring freedom, surrounded by those who "falsely believe they are free." The irony is that true freedom only exists with personal responsibility, something that is completly lacking in supporters of regulations like this. Goethe knew the cost of making people "free" to watch the play undisturbed was making others un-free to talk on their phones. I assumed that someone using the quotation as their .sig would realize this as well.

Goethe also said, "No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others."

Well, I NEVER...

[willith]

You know what I think we should do about cellular phones in public...

(ba-da-da-ba-da-da-ba-da-da-ba-BO-NAN-ZA!!)

Oh, excuse me for a second.

Hey, what's up?

Naw, I'm just posting on Slashdot.

Slashdot. You know. It's like, a big web site thingy. People post comments and stuff. It's kind of like the Roman senate if the Roman senate had been populated by thirty thousand incensed midgets.

Yeah, I know. I TOTALLY get that all the time.

Cell phones. We're talking about cellular phones in public places.

I *KNOW*! That TOTALLY drives me insane. Like, when you're talking to someone and their phone rings and they start talking on their phone instead of to you?

Totally. So, what's up with you? How's it going....

Re:Well, I NEVER...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Paraphrased from rec.humor.funny:

A man heading south on I-95 and stops at a rest area to use the facilities. While in his stall, someone in the stall next to him says "Hi, how are you?"

People don't normally talk in these situations, but what the hell. "I'm fine," he replies.

"So what are you doing?" Odd question, but whatever.

"Heading south, just like you," he replies.

"Excuse me, I'll have to call you back. Some idiot in here keeps replying to what I say to you."

Vote with your feet

[silentbozo]

I'd leave the show and demand my money back. I'm paying for an enjoyable movie experience, and if the theatre can't deliver, they should reap the consequences.

Talking during the movies - they should issue cluesticks specifically for beating the crap out of these kinds of people...

Re:Vote with your feet

[MisterBlister]

The other way to vote with your feet is to bust one of them straight up the ass of anyone rude enough to engage in such chatter in a theatre.

Thinking ahead...

[telstar]

While they're at it, they should pass a law banning the expansion of cellular service to subway tunnels.

One of the saving graces of the NYC subway is that, for the most part, people pretty much shut the fuck up. Unfortunately, cellular companies are currently researching the economical benefits of expanding service to the underground. Combine cramped quarters with non-stop blabber and I fear everybody might turn into Colin Furgeson.

Re:Thinking ahead...

[cosyne]

One of the saving graces of the NYC subway is that, for the most part, people pretty much shut the fuck up.

Perhaps you enjoy reading and re-reading ads and subway maps, but not everyone considers sitting in silence to be the most constructive use of their time. Assumably you wouldn't begrudge me a conversation with the person sitting next to me, so until you want to engage me in an interesting and stimulating conversation (about polite use of cell phones, perhaps), i'd appreciate being allowed to talk on a cell phone as long as i'm not unnecessarily loud or obnoxious about it. Besides, if you really have something which is a better use of everyone's time than talking to whomever they want, we won't need to ban cell phones: everyone will just do your thing.

And as long as i'm ranting, i'll the same thing is applicable in general. You don't need to be upset by people walking around talking on cell phones unless 1) you would be upset by them walking around talking to another person (in which you need help) or 2) they are being really loud, obnoxious, or dangerously distracted, or 3) nonstandard reasons like they're causing radio interference (which should be an FCC issue) or they're talking to your wife (again not the phone's fault).

Personally, i think cell phones are useful for talking to people during time which would otherwise be useless (ie transit). I think they're also useful for getting in touch with people. I do find it amazing that my mom carries a cell phone and won't turn it on, but expects me to able to find her in croweded (1000+ people) places. Maybe i'm just lame (well, not maybe, i am), but the off chance that one of my friends wants to talk to me is worth the risk that i have to spend 30 seconds of my time helping a colleague with something. If you refuse to carry a communication device because you don't want Work communicating with you, maybe you need to have a discussion with Work. /rant

A nice stiff $500 fine would be good.

[Viewsonic]

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.

Re:A nice stiff $500 fine would be good.

[vipw]

Perhaps petition the venue to create a cellphone policy and permanently ban offenders. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals than having the obnoxious oppressed by the police.

It sends a message

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:It sends a message

[Russ Nelson]

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

Re:It sends a message

[extrasolar]

Well, one of the main points of the US system of government is that of minority rights. In other words, we still have to respect the rights of that 0.01% who don't happen to agree. And its really not a point about agreeing and disagreeing. Its a question of justice.

As far as "violence of the state" goes, thats just a loaded anthropomorphism.

Re:It sends a message

[Dirtside]

Last I checked, the government's reason to exist was to prevent people from hurting each others' person and property. You suffer no measurable harm from hearing a cellphone in a theater.

It's a social problem; society will deal with it. You REALLY want to help? When you go to a movie or theater, get up a couple minutes before the performance starts and remind the audience to turn their damn cellphones off. Keep doing it, encourage others to do it, and sooner or later everyone remembers and learns. Asking for laws to do this for you is lazy, inefficient, and misguided. Lazy, because you can easily do it yourself. Inefficient, because instead of the people who are affected by the action discouraging it, they're having hired goons do it for them. Misguided, because our government has WAY more important things to worry about than whether you enjoy a damn movie.

We don't have laws telling people to be quiet in restaurants, or laws insisting that you be nice to others, and there's a reason we don't.

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[liquidsin]

Maybe people who are on call should stay out of movie theatres? Is there really a *need* to go to a movie? Is it something you can go see when you're *not* on call? What about the on call sys admin? Should he take his laptop to the theatre so he can work on any problems that my arise? Gah...here comes the clue-by-four...

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[smoondog]

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

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[shird]

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.

Not just in theatres.

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[dillon_rinker]

But my friend teaching the history class says it happens from time to time.
Perhaps your friend needs a course in self-assertiveness. People who take phone calls in class should be politely told that they will be dropped if it happens again.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[dillon_rinker]

So the doctor, suit, or your average on-call peon misses an important page or call?!

The onus is entirely on the person who is on-call:
"Hmm...that sign says that my cell phone won't work inside this room...oh well, I'll go in anyway..."

The obvious solution is radio-direction finding. Walk around with a device that points to the nearest cell phone; follow it until it obviously points to a single individual. Ask them to shut off their phone or leave. IANARE (radio engineer) so I don't know how feasible it is on a small scale.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[Roadmaster]

Technically enforcing the "no phones" rule is similar to putting speed bumps to stop speeders on the road. Sure it takes care of the problem, but the real cause, which is people's inability to RESPECT other people's rights (to cross the street without worrying about getting run over, or to enjoy a movie or play without some jackass yapping on the phone next to you) doesn't get taken care of. And as usual, it sucks that the innocent should also be dragged into a more uncomfortable existance because of those who can't RESPECT.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[BWJones]

Wouldn't you want to know right now, not when the show was over? Everyone, for a few moments of their life, is one of those people who NEEDS to get that call, right then.

Then either stay within reasonable contact, get a vibrating feature on your phone or pager and remove yourself to place the call. Especially in areas that are potentially sensitive to microwave radiation from cell phones like hospitals.

Blocking calls in an area should be illegal, since it is a public hazard. Someone could die on the street in front of a theatre because no one on the street could call for an ambulance immediately.

We are not talking on the street. We are talking about discreet areas like resturaunts. Did you read the article or my reply to it? Streets are public areas, therefore no blocking activity could take place. A resturaunt could be considered private and as such blocking could take place.

In case you are wondering, I have received notice while at lunch of my father having a stroke, so I feel very strongly about this, it's not just an exercise for me. I wouldn't enter a place that knowingly jammed my phone. I think the whole idea is unacceptable.

I am sorry about your father. Strokes can be truly catastrophic and I hope he is O.K. However, if it is posted in a resturaunt that calls are blocked and you choose not to give your patronage to that establishment. That is your business. I for one, rather appreciate a meal away from business where one can focus on the food and not have to worry about being in constant contact. (Wearing a pager constantly can be tiresome. Trust me.)

As for using your phone for non-critical conversation at socially unacceptable moments, it is that, a social problem. We already have way too many laws on the books now that aren't enforced, so adding one about cell phone usage is silly.

Did you read my post?

Re:Not just in theatres.

[Jester99]

Do you remember the 1980s and the first half of the 90s? They weren't that long ago, but with today's attention spans...

I was a child throughout the 80's. And we didn't have cel phones. So if my mom and dad went to a restaurant or a theatre or whatever, they called the theatre, and asked for that number. Then they gave that number to the babysitter (And when I was old enough to be home alone, gave it to me).

That way, in the event that there was a horrible catastrophe like my being hit by a bus, the theatre/restaurant could send an usher/waiter/whatever to my folks and inform them of my subsequent demise.

Our society has managed for hundreds of years to function without instantaneous communication. Just because it's now possible doesn't make it imperative. And while your example of your father having a stroke is realistic, it's fairly extreme -- and therefore doesn't justify a general rule of "because emergencies happen, people MUST be able to access cel phones."

The general rule I feel should be "Because emergencies happen, methods of contact should be available. But not if that method of contact can be widely abused - as cel phones in public places, are."

Re:Not just in theatres.

[CProgrammer98]

so should we also ban popcorn and chips? The rustling noises of packagaing and eating noises as people cram their fat faces with more food they don't need are also damned annoying and spoil my enjoyment of the movie.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[BlueUnderwear]

Blocking calls in an area should be illegal, since it is a public hazard. Someone could die on the street in front of a theatre because no one on the street could call for an ambulance immediately.

We are not talking on the street. We are talking about discreet areas like resturaunts. Did you read the article or my reply to it? Streets are public areas, therefore no blocking activity could take place. A resturaunt could be considered private and as such blocking could take place.

Yeah, and what's stopping the restaurant's cellphone jamming radiation from leaking out to the to the sidewalk in front of the restaurant? Its windows? Last I checked, glass usually does not block RF (or else the restaurant wouldn't need any cell blocking device). And even if it did, the jamming signal could still leak out if somebody left the door open because of hot weather ;-)

Re:Not just in theatres.

[BlueUnderwear]

So if my mom and dad went to a restaurant or a theatre or whatever, they called the theatre, and asked for that number.

Is that like asking "Does anybody know Pete's first name"?

Re:Not just in theatres.

[Darren Winsper]

I wonder if that sort of attitude was around at the time telephones were invented?

"Who needs a telephone? If someone needs to contact you in an emergency, they'll just send a runner to where you happen to be."

Mobile phones are very useful because they are exactly what they claim to be. What if there was a problem at the restaurant and they decided to go elsewhere? It would be a pain phoning back and forth to let people know where they were.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[gleam]

Yep, one of my professors said at the beginning of the course, "If you leave the room to answer a cell phone call, don't come back."

-gleam

Re:Not just in theatres.

[Dirtside]

There's a lot more than eleven thousand people in the U.S.A. who need to be able to take a call whenever and wherever. They're called doctors.

Blocking cellphone signals to soothe your moral qualms is a foolish solution. Let society train itself to learn the rules of cellphone etiquette. Punishing the majority for the sins of a few has always been a <flame on!> stupid motherfucking retarded assfuck douchebag </flame> reaction to things.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[BWJones]

Speaking from a medically trained perspective myself, (read my first post on this thread) let me ask you.....would you want your physician discussing your medical specifics in the middle of a resturaunt? I suspect not. Therefore, when I get paged (silently) as do many others in the middle of a resturaunt or whereever, I take my conversation outside for the benefit of the establishments patrons and the subject of the call.

You have a BS in CS right? Some advice.......try and grow into it.

Re:Not just in theatres.

[Dirtside]

I tried to find the part in my post where I suggested the doctor stay inside the (theater/restaurant) to take the call, and couldn't find it. Maybe you could point it out to me.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I figured it was BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that once you receive the call, you take it somewhere private. Being able to receive an emergency medical call does not mean you are required to let everyone nearby in on the details.

Surely you, as someone trained in medicine, must have known that. Since you bothered to visit my website and find that much out about me, why didn't you read my other posts on this topic instead?

The world is their living room

[Wag]

While I agree with the law about not talking while driving (it's already been proven a hazard many times over), this other law is just plain stupid.

If multiplexes are too damn cheap to pay for their own security, then what the hell are they going to do? Call the NYPD every time some jackass who's talking on their phone refuses to leave?

I think the NYPD is a bit too busy to be bothering with this, but then again, they went and collected a mis-shipped prototype WebTV for MS, so maybe they wouldn't mind...

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[silentbozo]

Perhaps she needs a bluetooth earpiece to receive pages/calls without bothering other people? Somebody, hurry up and put this sucker into production so we needn't worry about accidentally beating the crap out some poor schlob who forgot to turn his/her cellphone/pager off during a movie.

Re:Great, more legislation

[3583 Bytes Free]

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.

Re:Why not just block cell phone signals?

[phillymjs]

Blocking won't work because of liability issues. The first time someone misses an emergency call because blocking/jamming technology is used wherever they are, it'll be multimillion-dollar lawsuit time.

Just throwing the ignorant or forgetful asswipes out of the theater won't work well, either. But if they get fined one or two hundred bucks, that will most likely give their memory and courtesy a little boost the next time.

IMHO, a fine won't work as well as a healthy dose of Angry Mob Justice, but the fine is much more likely to be legislated into existence. :-)

~Philly

Horrible idea

[donutello]

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.

Re:Horrible idea

[nlh]

I don't think any owners of theater are OK with people using cellphones. In fact, almost every theater I've been to recently has some type of "please turn your cellphone off!" sign or warning.

The difference is, theater owners can't fine you if you keep it on. They can't take away your phone either -- all they can do is yell at you. A law would enable direct monetary or physical consequences to being a dipshit, and that will act as a deterrant.

--noah

Re:Horrible idea

[forged]

• ..."Shut up and get up," he said. "Nobody is going to take you to jail if you put your phone on vibrate. Get your ass out of the seat and go to the lobby (to take the call). How complicated is that?"

The above quote from the aricle summarizes perfectly my view, and I'm sure, most other readers' !

I'm in favor of the bill if it can enforce what should be basic common sense, yet seems to be lacking to a (increasingly large) number of people.

Re:Horrible idea

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc.

Hmmm. Maybe we can consider it "noise pollution" and make it a state issue...

Re:Horrible idea

[Issue9mm]

Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment. It's not the government's business what goes on private property. While I understand how noble their intentions, it simply isn't their place.

That said, I don't see why cinemas don't more actively usher their theaters. I mean, seriously, I will never go to a theater on the weekend (Friday nights especially) because there's too much noise and racket going on, from cell phones, to persons on opposite ends of the theater chatting, to latecomers, etc.

If a given cinema were to ACTIVELY ush (is that a word?) their theaters, especially on weekends, then they'd most likely earn my weekend business at the very least. There are plenty of Fridays that I'd like to go see a movie, or a debut, but usually put it off until during the week because I know I won't be able to enjoy it. If there were a theater I could go to that actively monitored each theater, and was able to maintain a peaceful environment in which I could enjoy my movie, I'd go there in a heartbeat.

I'm not all that hot on the economics, but I expect that with as little cinema employees are paid, and the (expected) revenue increase as word of mouth spread about how quiet their theaters were, the profit gain on food and beverage sales would more than make up for the extra outlay in manpower, but more importantly, I could enjoy the movie.

-9mm-

Re:Horrible idea

[sulli]

I'm suprised to see that most of the posters agree with this proposed law.

I'm not.

Slashdot: Protect My Rights, The Hell With Yours!

Re:Horrible idea

[Troed]

At the premiere of Lord of the Rings at Royal in Sweden, they said before the film started that if a cellphone started ringing, they'd stop the film and put a spotlight on the offender.

They also stated that the Tolkien-fans would probably take care of the rest.

Not a single cellphone was heard throughout the film.

Re:Horrible idea

[Jucius Maximus]

"What makes mobile phones so different from digital watches that play tunes, or PDAs with loud alarms, or squeakers, or horns, or anything else that makes a noise? Why ban the phone, instead of the noise it causes? Ditto talking; if we ban the noise of one person talking on a phone during a performance, shouldn't we also ban two people talking to each other?"

The thing that sets cell phones apart from all those other items is that I can dial your mobile when you least expect it and make it ring. There is an unexpected element there, not totally controllable by the phone's owner unless they always remember when to change it to vibrate. You don't have to be manipulating or devoting any of your brain power to your cellphone and it can still ring.

With the other items, only you can cause it to beep (unless your PDA is internet connected and I send you an ICQ message or something.) There is more control here. This is unlikely when your attention is focused on the movie.

Re:Horrible idea

[ChristTrekker]

You actually want to give the government the power to enforce social norms? Heaven help us all.

Theater owners are within their rights to eject the offender from the premises and refuse him further service. If they actually exercised this right, the problem would go away. Or they could make it theater policy that adjacent theater guests can dump their Cokes on the offender's head, as another poster has suggested. There's no need to make yet another law. Isn't society litigous enough the way it is?

This is not a legal problem, and does not require a legal solution. There "ought to be a law" against people who immediately cry there "ought to be a law" when they hear of any problem. (Yes, that's sarcasm.) What next? Would you fine me (or put me in jail) for grunting too loud in the loo for fear I might offend someone? Give me a break.

Re:Horrible idea

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

Funny, that's what I say about spam and I get flamed for it.

Re:Horrible idea

[pmz]

Slashdot: Protect My Rights, The Hell With Yours!

This law about cell phones does not rank with the book-burners' wishes that only they have protection under the First Amendment.

Cell phones ringers and, similarly, overpowered personal stereo equipment are not protected by the Constitution, in my opinion. They inhibit other people's Constitutional rights to enjoy uninterrupted theatrical performances, listen their own music at a reasonable volume, or even enjoy a book, for cripes sake. If I had a dollar for everytime a passing ear drum-busting car interrupted something I was doing, I would have enough money for a new computer.

Re:Horrible idea

[WNight]

Fine print on tickets is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

You can't expect someone to abide by restrictions they weren't informed of before they agreed to a purchase/contract.

This is why EULAs are ignorable.

Start making everyone read a sign full of restrictions before they buy the ticket. You'll sell a lot less tickets, but you might actually be able to enforce the restrictions. (Ditto with software. Show me the EULA at the register, before I buy and it'll be binding.)

One way to stop it

[JazFresh]

I was in a movie theatre watching Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and at a pivotal, very emotional point in the movie, everyone is totally quiet and completely immersed in this beautiful scene.

And then Flight of the Bumblebee started up.

Everyone cringed, because it was already muffled - it was in somebody's handbag, so the audience knew they'd have to suffer while the guilty party furiously dug around for it, and that it would get worse (i.e. LOUDER) when they took it out to shut it off.

There was a deep gruff voice from the back:

"Let it ring. So I can find you."

It got shut off pretty quick.

Re:One way to stop it

[Jamz]

I too was sitting in the Cinema the other day whe a cell phone went off and wondered to myself:

Why don't they just put wire mesh on the walls of theatres and cinemas. The wire mesh gaps being the wavelength of cell phones (which I think is about 35cm) Then all that would happen is that those people who didn't turn their cell phones off would have flat betteries by the end of the film :)

I can't really see any down side to this - technical solution to a technical problem.

Click and Clack Car Guys Bumper Sticker

[Camel Pilot]

Car Guys on public radio wanted to sell a bumper sticker with:

"Would You Drive Better If I Crammed That Cell Phone Up Your Tailpipe?"

Marketing gurus thought better and finally published the boring

"Drive Now, Talk Later"

Way to go Laurence!

[rnturn]

``Laurence Fishburne, in the middle of a Broadway performance, yelled to an audience member to "turn your f___ing phone off!"''

Here's hoping that a lighting technician shone a big spotlight on the dufus as well.

Special case exemptions?

[Winterblink]

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 :)

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[jamesoutlaw]

No, they should not sit indoors all the time but if they expect to get respect from the rest of us, they should be willing to respect our rights as well... and they have absolutely no right to disturb me or anyone else who has paid money to see a movie, play or whatever else. A simple solution, as many have pointed out, is to simply use a vibrating pager or phone and carry it so that you can feel it vibrate. That's all they need to do.

Education vs. Fines? How about both?

[Our Man In Redmond]

Kim Kuo, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, said the industry preferred educating people on cell-phone etiquette than slapping them with fines.

I don't konw, $50 sounds like a pretty cheap education for those clueless enough to carry a live cell phone into a theater.

What's more unsettling in the theatre...

[LinuxWhore]

...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.

solution: cloning!

[Quazi]

How much you want to bet that the person mr. fishbourne yelled at will never leave his/her cellphone on in a movie theater/play/whatever again?

This is why we need to lift the ban on human cloning. We need a 'Laurence Fishburne' in every theater! ;)

In movie theaters, just a "turn your fucking phone off" courtesy message right after the FBI warning should do the trick.

Re:Yacking In Theaters

[phillymjs]

I agree with you.

We need laws that allow us to simply euthanize deaf old people who go to movies and constantly ask their companion to repeat/explain something. Because they get pissy and indignant when someone under 65 asks them to be quiet, no matter how nicely. Usually, angrily whispering "Shut the FUCK UP!" will shock them into silence for a while, though.

My worst experience in a theater, however, was with a cell phone. Since I generally hate people because they're fucking rude idiots, I go to the movies by myself and only attend the earliest possible show on a Sunday afternoon a few weeks after it opens. When I saw 40 Days & 40 Nights, I was the only person in the theater, and quite happy about it. A little more than halfway through, two theater employees came in and sat down near me. Less than three minutes later, the one dickmonkey's freaking cell phone rings! I am disgusted to reaffirm that this actually happened, I'm not making it up. You would think that at least the people who work at the damned theater would have their phones off or set to vibrate.

~Philly

Exactly

[freeweed]

Peer pressure is much more effective than legislation.

What's next? Laws banning people from talking during a movie? Cruching on popcorn? Getting up to go to the bathroom?

A Clarification on the NY/Cell issue

[zorander]

There's a lot of piss and moan going on about this right now so let me clear this up (I know it's been mentioned, but people don't often see things deep in the threads and make moronic comments anyways)

Cell phone use in cars is not illegal in New York state. I should know. I drive cars in New York State.

It's the *handset*. If you get a handsfree unit (indeed...it is law that all phones come with a handsfree unit in this state. typically they give you a coupon to send for one.) It's the hand off the wheel, not the conversation/distraction factor....and of course the looking for the phone when it rings (handfree makes it easy to answer and something you can learn to do without looking--like skipping tracks on the CD player).

Besides. I like having the phone in a handsfree cradle because that keeps it charged (even in the limited amount of time i spend in the car) and I always know where it is when I am getting out of the car and need to make sure I have it, etc. Makes things easier and less distracting..

this is a good thing...especially around here, high school students get into accidents involving cell phones because they're more inexperienced at driving and the extra distraction puts them over a threshold in an emergency situation...actually I think looking for the phone/getting it out of my pocket is the hardest part...

oh yeah. You can talk at stoplights and while pulled over, and for thirty seconds under any circumstances before a ticket can be given. Very few emergencies need more than thirty seconds..

so that's the scoop on cell phones in cars in new york so COOL IT

Brian

Re:A Clarification on the NY/Cell issue

[Suidae]

Has anyone else ever noticed that a major part of the distraction of phones will driving is that it takes a lot more attention to listen to something coming in just one ear, particularly in a noisy environment?

It seems to me that hands free sets are not a good solution, unless they are speaker phones. Most people I know drive with one hand anyway (its required with a stick), hanging on to a phone really doesn't take any attention at all. Hearing whats said does. I can carry on a conversation with someone in the passenger seat with no problem, its not distracting. I can hold a phone up with no problem. Listening with one ear is a problem.

If you don't believe that you miss lots of info listening with one ear, try these experiments. Put in one earplug and try going around work that way. See how many times you have people repeat themselves, or how carefully you have to listen. Next, get a phone, crack open the handset and wire a standard pair of headphones into it so that *both* speakers work. Call someone and be amazed at what you can hear in the background. Someone talking across the room? You'll hear every word clearly.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think that any locality which requires handsfree sets in the car is doing anyone any favors, I believe that the problem has not been fully researched by these areas. Speakerphones or two-speaker headsets are the correct solution.

Re:A Clarification on the NY/Cell issue

[tshak]

Unfortunately most studies show that the distraction factor is not because of the fact that you are HOLDING the cell phone, it has to do with the CONVERSATION. Of course, this can be said for someone in your seat, but most people prioritize phone calls for some stupid reason.

Re:A Clarification on the NY/Cell issue

[i0lanthe]

Here's a study using fMRI, in case y'all don't believe tshak:

http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/010906/010906_cell.html

Just, co-director of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging (www.ccbi.cmu.edu), said making cell phones "hands free" won't help.

"Use of cell phones doesn't just distract the eyes," he said. "The conversation itself also distracts the brain. Making the cell phone hands-free will not help eliminate the brain distraction."

Re:Government's place?

[phillymjs]

I don't really want the government to have to make cell phone use illegal in certain places, either. I'd much prefer it if they made it legal for us to occasionally beat some courtesy into people who need it, without worrying about prosecution for it.

~Philly

Use your brain instead of your keister.

[Russ Nelson]

Can you think of ten different ways to solve the same problem without invoking the violence of the state? Here's one to prime your pump: charge an extra $5 for a "cellphone ticket." If you want to enter the theatre with a cellphone, you have to pay the cellphone ticket price. Okay, so I can tell that your pump needs extra priming, so here's another one: before beginning the performance, the stage manager goes out on stage and says "Hi. We understand that some people simply CANNOT turn their cellphones off. If your cellphone goes off, you are obviously going to be in such a hurry to get somewhere that you'll need a police escort. So if we hear a cellphone, we're going to call the police for your escort. Enjoy the performance!"

Re:Use your brain instead of your keister.

[puppet10]

Better yet just have anyone disrupting a performance be financially responsible for anyone who wants a refund.

*bzzt* Invalid reason - put on vibrate

[Sean Clifford]

*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.

Re:*bzzt* Invalid reason - put on vibrate

[Sean Clifford]

I'm not really sure I'd be able to concentrate on the movie after the fighter/bomber pilots are scrambled...

LOL. You deserve a +1, Funny.

Believe it or not, you get used to it. I lived next to the flight line and would be lulled to sleep by the roar of engines being tested, planes taking off. When they were gone (bombing the shit out of someone overseas) I couldn't sleep - I needed the noise.

As a military brat, my friends and I never really worried about WWIII. I mean, we were #3 or so on the Soviet target list. You would never know. The base would get locked down like any alert/exercise, the planes would take off and then - poof. We'd all be dead in a microsecond, so it wasn't really worth worrying about. We were pretty fatalistic.

Worst case: after the alert crews took off, we'd probably have time to finish watching the movie before the nukes struck.

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[Misch]

what about people who are oncall?

That's what VIBRATE is for.

Most professional theatres will allow (and encourage) audience members to leave their cell phone/pager at the box office with their seat number. In case it goes off, the house manager (and staff) can fetch you if it goes off.

When I've shelled out $150 for a weekend in Toronto to see The Phantom of the Opera, I shouldn't have to (along with 3 other audience members) turn around and give a woman the "stare of death" to shut up and hang up her phone during the start of the second act.

Perhaps if we were allowed to exercise out second amendment rights for stupid people like this, we could socially (or in a Darwin-esque form) get rid of this form of stupidity. Until then, we're stuck with laws that prevent us from beating the crap out of people who are just plain fscking rude.

Is this why people have Media Rooms or vice versa?

[The Optimizer]

I wonder if this phenomonom of a growing lack of respect of all sorts by people at public performances has caused the trend towards creating media rooms, Home theatre systems, etc, in people's homes -- where they can enjoy movies without the idiots....

... or ...

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.

Passive blocking of cell phones in select areas

[jjh37997]

What about those wooden panels that contain magnetic material that block cell phone transmissions developed by Hideo Oka? As long as there are signs that clearly state that cell phones are useless within the confines of the theater and maybe an agreement on the back of each ticket all our problems are solved.

Hell, if your life is so damn important that you have to be able to ruin my trip to the movies with your noise then maybe you shouldn't be wasting your time in the theater in the first place...

This is not a suitable role for government

[Crag]

Thog: We've invented the wheel, the axe, and now Glogh has learned to ride a wheel and hit people with his axe, so we have our first policeman. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what kind of activities Glogh should police?

Srak: I'm an old man, and I can't protect the grain silo from mischevious kids. Glogh should chase down kids and take them to their parents to be taught to work for their food.

Thog: Good suggestion. Anyone else?

Gliza: Some of the men in town have been ... forceful with me, and with my father dead and no husband to defend me, they get away with it. If Glogh doesn't chop their heads off, I may have to do it myself.

Thog [sweating]: Duely noted! Next?

Wheez: I don't like the hat Srak wears when we're in the amphetheater listening to the drummers. I can't see the drummers if I sit behind him. I think Glogh should hit him if he doesn't quit.

Thog: Why don't you just tell him yourself?

Wheez: He's a public nuisance, it's a public problem!

Gliza: It doesn't bother me.

Glogh: Me either.

Thog: Now now, Wheez has a point. Srak has been quite a nuisance since he became Grain Master. I sometimes think he wears that hat at drum shows, just so we know he's there and that HE controls the GRAIN.

Wheez: Yeah! And I've seen him riding a wheel with that hat on, grinning like an idiot, and nearly running me over! Riding a wheel is hard enough as it is without something on his head confusing him.

[The cave people argue into the night, finally passing a law against wearing hats while riding a wheel or watching a performance. Srak is convicted retroactively, and Wheez and Thog take over control of the grain silo.

But there's no proof!

[Russ Nelson]

I agree with you, but I would point out that there is absolutely zero evidence that 1) cellphone use causes accidents, 2) that there aren't other activities of a similar nature which cause more accidents which should be outlawed first (like smoking in your car!), 3) that if there is indeed a problem, that it won't go away, and 4) that requiring headsets is any safer.

It's just a stupid, stupid law which reflects absolutely no thought on the part of legislators -- but did that surprise you?
-russ

Re:ABOUT DAMNED TIME!

[Misch]

A handy reminder was in one of my cell phone bills earlier this year:

"Use of a hand-held cellular telephone to engage in a call while driving is prohibited in New York State, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1225c"

Of course, this doesn't ban hands-free kits, which took me forever and a day to get one of in New York thanks to my phone manufacturer not being fully ready for it.

My best memory came last summer when me and my (former) cow orkers were on our way to lunch. As we were driving down I-590 near Rochester, I saw a blue mini-van coming up on our right side with a crumpled up front right corner. I looked up to the driver, seeing her forearm in a cast, with her hand jamming a cell phone up to her ear.

I wondered how many of those were related.

No maybe about it, but...

[fm6]

The audience was hissing at him, shushing him, and finally someone shouted "Would you please get off the fucking phone?"

The guy kept talking for another minute, then got off the phone, then took off. Needless to say, it fucked up that part of the movie pretty badly.

So why didn't anybody get in his face? They wouldn't even have to be rude, just make it very clear that that he's spoiling everybody's entertainment.

Which fact he might well not have been aware of. People talking on cell phones have an interesting tendency to block things out. The lose audio feedback, so they talk too loud. And of course they don't hear people hissing at them. It might be similar to the way people shout when someone tries to converse with them while they're wear enclosed earphones, but I could be wrong about that.

Because not enough people have the common courtesy to TURN THEIR PHONE OFF during movies and performances, perhaps a nice stiff fine of around 250 - 500 dollars per incident would keep things under control.

Well, I turn mine off, but mainly because I don't want my own movie experience interrupted. I think it's enough to require people to set their phones to vibrate, and to leave the theater when they take a call. Let's have a little tolerance for doctors, elevator repairers, and other folks who'd never get to go out if it meant going out of contact.

And yes, fines seem to be needed to get people's attention. But let's set them just high enough to do so. We already have too many laws that express more anger than sense.

Banning cell phone use in cars is just stupid.

No, it's based on the same issue blotting-out issue I just talked about. Plus, talking to somebody who's not in the car is much more distracting than talking with a passenger. A passenger knows enough not to say, "Hello, are you still there," when something unexpected happens and you need all your attention on the road.

In fact, I was nearly run down the other day by somebody on a cell. She was moving at slow speed through a parking lot, so it wasn't a matter of control. She was just giving too much attention to her conversation, and not enough to all the pedestrians swarming around her.

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[Russ Nelson]

Now you're starting to see the problem. The law will have to be modified to allow people who are on call to attend public performances. And then we'll need an identification card to identify such people. And then a fee to administer the cellphone permit system. And then other groups will say "But we need to have our cellphones all the time." And they'll have to have their permits as well.

Law doesn't engender freedom. Laws engender more laws.

Fishburne's solution was the best. However, he should have gone farther. He should have gone to the front of the stage, asked people to point out the offender, and asked her to leave. And then said to the audience in general "Is YOUR cellphone turned on?"
-russ

-russ

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[lactose99]

"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."

I don't like this particular cop-out. What about my movie that I just paid for? IT DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL when someone's cell phone is going off.

Your right to have an audible cell phone ends when I'm paying for clarity in the aureal space of a movie theater or artistic performance. If you can't put it on vibrate, leave it at home. If you can't put leave it at home, find something else to do. Simple.

Better Yet: Lose The Damnned Electronic Tether!

[NeuroManson]

Seriously, here we have people who whine about:

(a) A national ID card which can track their every movement...

(b) People who bitch because spam company X can trade their information with everyone willing to pay the right price...

(c) People who complain about the concept of a monitoring chip of any kind being inserted into their body/computer/property...

And YET, they're in risk of being forced to not be contacted in the same way that gives most of us reason and cause to get out of the home/office, which is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE HOME/OFFICE!!! And STILL they bitch...

If you are THAT goddamnned stupid, then PLEASE... Continue to use your precious cellular phone, becase whatever brain tumors they could possibly give you would be a definate improvement on your collective intelligence...

And this is coming from someone who, after letting a wired line bill lapse, is forced to use one...

But seriously, if you look at it, the devices such as wireless modems, cel phones, satellite modem uplinks et al, that everyone is claiming to denote some form of freedom, the truth is, they don't... How many here have been able to relax without the phone ringing, or without an IM window popping up, or just for a day going without having SOME form of electronic communications? Without a beer ad, even? That is the electronic tether of which I speak... No matter where you are, you cannot go, cannot live, cannot think without some form of open ended communication interfering with the minute amount of freedom FROM noise or interferance that you once came to expect? Or, more appropriately, those of you with lovers, how often did you get to go without intimate interferance because someone tried asking you "R U on CS now?" while you were in the act?

Not very often, I bet...

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[Misch]

As I've said, most professional theaters (especially in NYC) will allow (and encourage) patrons to leave cell phones/pagers with the house manager during the performance, along with their seat location. If the phone rings or the pager goes off, the person is retrieved.

Sometimes, ushers will have people trade seats in a row so the person is along the aisle.

"What about vibrate mode?", it doesn't work very well well you're female and the phone is in your purse. Put it in your hand. Stuff it in your bra, or stick it in your pants. Tape it to your arm. You'll feel it. If it's important enough that you have to know it's there, then you have to live with that. I shouldn't have to.

No states ban cellphone use while driving

[phr2]

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.

Re:No states ban cellphone use while driving

[Sentry21]

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

Re:No states ban cellphone use while driving

[WIAKywbfatw]

Same with the cell-phone thing. I've been the in car with someone holding a meeting via cellphone, while the driver who was speaking and concentrating on the meeting performed some of the most skilled driving I've ever seen. Its completely dependent on the skill of the invovled person.

I really think what need is to get rid of most of the laws regarding that stuff - DWI, Cellhpone bans, all that junk.

Instead punish outcomes. If you are driving down the road and swerving in and out of lane, thats reckless endangerment and reckless driving. It doesnt matter if you were reaching for the radio, reaching for the phone, dropped a cigarette in your lap, or are drunk (if you are drunk when pulled over, you'd of course get arrested on the spot still - I am not suggesting we just write a summons and send them on the way).

And some people, such as race car drivers, can drive at speeds in excess of 150 mph with near complete control of their vehicles. The rational extension of your argument is that speed limits shouldn't exist either because there are people out there who could get to their destinations faster and just as safely without them.

You seem to forget that laws are in place to prevent unfavorable outcomes and tragedies just as much as they are there to punish transgressors.

Re:No states ban cellphone use while driving

[Sentry21]

I've got a better idea. Lock people up for DUI for any blood-alcohol content. Give them a week on first offence (if no damage done), then a month, then a year (more, obviously, if damage is done).

Putting people's lives at risk IS an offence, and that's what someone is doing when they get behind a wheel with ANY alcohol in their system. I have zero tolerance for people doing stupid things, and I wish more people shared my opinion.

Punish for outcomes, not for causes? So we'll let someone drive drunk until they kill someone, because they haven't proven that they're a danger? You'd rather put people's lives at risk until we have blood on the asphalt so that we KNOW it's a danger?

I'm sorry, but after someone gets hurt is a little late to make a difference.

--Dan

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[Russ Nelson]

Why should doctors have to pay the fine? And if doctors don't, what about EMTs? Firemen? Policemen? Sysadmins? Plumbers?

Laws create more laws.
-russ

Re:On cel phones and supid laws

[Keith Russell]

What about car makers putting a standardized jack in cars for automatic hands free operation compatable with all cel phones?

Chrysler's ahead of you on that one. Unfortunately, it's based on Bluetooth, which is about as common on American mobiles as spines are in American congressmen. But look on the bright side: Bluetooth has greater growth potential.

Rely on places of public performace to police it

[TheEviscerator]

Rather than passing laws to deal with a problem of public nuisance like this, why not rely on markets instead? Most movie theaters and play houses I've been in have strict guidelines governing the use of cell phones, pagers, etc. If you don't like the way in which matters of public decorum are governed at a public performance, either make your voice heard by complaining to management, or simply patronize a different business.

Jesus

[thedbp]

All I have to say, is that if Lawrence Fishburn personally told me to turn my f-ing phone off, i'd f-ing crap my f-ing pants and be very very terrified. then i'd rave to my friends about how it was the most realistic performance i'd ever seen.

Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out

[The Optimizer]

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?

Re:Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out

[sehryan]

I was thinking the same thing. You got the cel because you had a child, but you don't carry it with you unless you are expecting them to call. I believe accidents are called accidents because you don't expect them.

Re:Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out

[WNight]

Why have a cell phone if you don't keep it with you?

I have a cell phone but I don't bother answering it unless it's that short list you mentioned (wife, family) unless I'm idle and wouldn't mind taking a call. The only reason that short list of people are on the always answer list is because they never just call to chat in the middle of the day. If they call, they've got something of at least moderate importance to say and they're okay with being told that I'm in a hurry.

But, everyone has my cell phone number. I cancelled the land line after my wife and I got 'em. If I do want to talk to someone, it's much more convenient to be able to do so at any time instead of going to a special place...

I also paid a bit more though, for a phone that had voice-ring capability, where it would say the name of the person calling. When I'm not easily able to look at the phone, having dinner, playing a game, etc, I know if it's worth even glancing at.

Re:Not carrying a phone makes me the odd man out

[Dirtside]

No, most of us carry cellphones so that we can call anyone at any time we like, without having to find a payphone. I personally don't mind people calling me most of the time, but if I don't want to be reached, I turn the fucking thing off. This is not rocket science. By sheer non-coincidence, my friends are not people who expect me to be instantly available due to the fact that I have a cellphone.

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[jdkane]

For the people who HAVE to leave their cell phones on, they also HAVE the responsibility to use their brains a little bit more than the average non-cell-phone user.

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:

1. Put the phone on vibrate mode and *take it out of your purse* and put it in your lap or wherever vibration can be felt.
2. For the courtesy of others, if you expect to take a call, then sit near the isle close to the exit where you can immediately leave if your phone vibrates.
3. If your phone only has ring mode and you can't turn it off then don't go to the theatre -- rent a movie instead.
   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?

[boopus]

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.

Re:Real Solution?

[boopus]

Yeah, but that would be far more expensive than the electronic solution, and in the end people wouldn't be able to know if they were getting a call... I don't care if people look at their phone, decide they want to take the call, and walk out of the theater -- it's no more of a hassle than the person who has a extra large soda and has to go to the bathroom... I just don't want to hear the damn phone ring.

I vote for...

[tlambert]

I vote for a box to make cell phones ring as you enter an establishment, so that whoever is at the door can hand out a clue.

In movie theaters, you could put up a "have you turned off the ringer on your cell phone?" slide, and then make the things ring. Do this 4 or 5 times before the previews, etc., start.

Another alternative is to actually put a *cell* in the theater, and give it a $50 call termination/origination fee. 8-).

-- Terry

Re:I vote for...

[Maserati]

Terry, that $50 fee might be the best idea ever posted on Slashdot. Simple, pointed and brutal. I like it.

Re:I vote for...

[barnaclebarnes]

In movie theaters, you could put up a "have you turned off the ringer on your cell phone?" slide, and then make the things ring. Do this 4 or 5 times before the previews, etc., start.

Actually they have been doing this for at least the last couple of years in the UK. Twice before the mobvie starts they have an ad. The first one has about 10 phones ringing from all over the place (surround sound), the next one is a Wallace And Grommit ad.

They work to. Most times I rememeber to turn of my phone before I go into the theater but on the few occasions I don't the ads are a simple polite way to remind me to.

Re:I vote for...

[Lumpy]

Soldier Field in Chicago did this already...

At a Convention back in 1997 I made a call from the convention floor inside.. The call lasted 3 minutes and cost me $27.50

it's happening at the bigger venues, and will start happening more and more....

BTW, I had a decent phone so I can tell it to ignore a specific cell site (most older phones allowed that the cheap crap that costs less than $300.00 doesn't without the backdoor password) and that was analog land then... Digital now sel centers on the preffered provider sites instead of the strongest signal.. So it might not work for digital phones now... but it was quite a racket!

The perfect solution

[ErikTheRed]

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.

Re:The perfect solution

[Jucius Maximus]

"I would happily pay $25 to be able to vent my frutstration on some jackass who leaves his cellphone on in the theater."

You wouldn't, by chance, be one of the guys shown in the videos on this site, would you?

Re:The perfect solution

[ShavenYak]

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?

Re:The perfect solution

[ShavenYak]

It's really simple: Don't Be A Jerkoff.

Or, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Great advice, but neither the person who brings his cellphone into the theater nor the person who beats him up are following it.

I bet that if there were some threat of physical violence, classes and movies would be a whole lot more enjoyable to go to.

Yep, until there's something you are doing that annoys someone, and you get beat up over it.

There are two damned many SUV driving, cell-phone talking, red-zone parking me-monkeys out there that really should just grow up and learn that we are living in a society.

Agreed, but there are also too many wanna-be vigilantes who think the solution is to go around hurting people and destroying property.

Yes, violence is wrong, but I think that the comfort of others is worth the cost of physical violence to the one jerkoff that thinks it's ok to piss off everyone else for their own comfort.

Umm, I might point out that in most people's codes of ethics, two wrongs do not make a right. Besides, if missing a few lines of dialog in a movie is comparable in your mind to a physical beating, your priorities need to be re-examined.

When the solution is as simple as turning off a phone so as to not annoy other people, selfishness is a crime.

Yes, cretins who don't care whether they annoy other people or not are no fun. It is possible, though, that someone simply forgot to turn the ringer off - I hardly think that sort of accidental lapse is deserving of physical punishment.

You deserve to get beaten down for the good of society.

Ah, the good of society. How many people have suffered and died at the hands of totalitarian regimes "for the good of society"?

Look, I'm not apologizing for the assholes whose phones ring during the movie, I'm just pointing out that violence is not an acceptable answer to the situation. If you believe a good beating solves the problem every time, you've been to the movies too much already.

Bluetooth application

[endquotedotcom]

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?

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[mark-t]

I can see both sides of the issue here, but I'm certainly more strongly inclined to prefer that the law not come into play here. Honestly, if an institution simply says "no cell phones", they have every right to do so, and to simply remove people from their premises who fail to comply with their restriction.

Regardless of how much one had paid for a ticket, when they go into private property (a theatre, for example), he or she must conceed to abide by the rules and regulations that the proprietor has laid out -- if one is not happy with those restrictions, they could reasonably be told to leave. Freedom rights are not being violated because a theatre is not public property.

Of course, in the event of an actual emergency, I can't see the theatre staff being anally retentive on the issue -- so let it just be considered what it always has been: bad manners. Trying to legislate ettiquete will just waste people's time.

violence of the state?

[Infonaut]

"...violence of the state."

Ah, so you're opposed to the presence of states in general? Are you an anarchist, a libertarian, or just someone who believes that any form of collective control is evil? Or are you unopposed to government, so long as it doesn't pass laws (therefore rendering it something other than a government)?

I agree that there are other more imaginative ways to get people to turn off their cellphones in the movie theater. But nobody seems to have come up with one, do they? This isn't the massive cohersive force of the state being brought to bear on poor, defenseless promoters of free thought. It's just people in one municipality saying "enough" and telling cellphone abusers that they need to stop.

Re:violence of the state?

[Safety Cap]

I agree that there are other more imaginative ways to get people to turn off their cellphones in the movie theater. But nobody seems to have come up with one, do they?

Several companies have solutions to this problem: cell phone blockers. Unfortunately they are illegal in the States.

Imagine the scenario - you walk into the theater, see the sign "All cell use blocked in this esablishment," then rush outside to join your fellow phone addicts, smokers, and phone-addict smokers for a quick "fix" before the show starts!

Theatres should jam cell phones

[rlowe69]

Instead of allowing cell phones, why not just effectively jam cell phone signals from coming in our out of the theatre? I live in a basement apartment in a crappy building and I have terrible cell phone reception. Surely the theatres can set up some sort of blackout zone (ie. using E-M interference).

And for those that argue that some people might need their cell phones for emergencies, I say this: what the eff did these people do 10 years ago when people didn't have cell phones? Surely they can last 2 hours without cell phone service. For most people, cell phones are a luxury and not a necessity. Then if you want cell phone service during a movie, go to a crappy theatre. I'll be going to the ones that jam cell service so I can get some peace and quiet.

Re:Theatres should jam cell phones

[Anonvmous Coward]

Yeah, good idea, punish everybody, including those that didn't commit any crimes.

Re:Theatres should jam cell phones

[rlowe69]

Yeah, good idea, punish everybody, including those that didn't commit any crimes.

If the crime is being a social moron, some people have to be protected from themselves. People will take advantage of a situation if they can, no matter how rude the behaviour - they are either ignorant or plead ignorance. Completely blocking cell phones gives them no excuse.

If you have a job that requires you to be on call, you probably also can't travel more than an hour or so away from where you work. If you don't like the side effects of having a job like this, maybe you should choose a different job.

Re:Theatres should jam cell phones

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If you have a job that requires you to be on call, you probably also can't travel more than an hour or so away from where you work. If you don't like the side effects of having a job like this, maybe you should choose a different job."

Give your doctor a call and tell him that. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

And then what?

[fm6]

Theater owners already have this ban. Doesn't seem to help a lot. What are the employees supposed to do, escort every abuser out of the theater? If theaters have to pay their people enough to handle that kind of thing, movie tickets are gonna get very expensive.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why not just use jamming technology

[odaiwai]

The technology may be for sale here (in hong kong) but it sure as heck isn't being used.

Movie theatres are plagued with mobile phone twats, as are almost all performances.

It doesn't help that it seems to be impossible to speak Cantonese quietly...

dave "WAI? WAI?"

Re:Why not just use jamming technology

[BrookHarty]

Yes, good idea. Next time you want to murder someone, cut his land line, jam is cell phone. That's some good technology there. Also nice that you cant control the range, so the alley next to the movie theater, you cant call 911. when you are being mugged or having a heart attack, you can just thank the friendly cell phone jammer.

WTF is this a War on idiots? Fuck, im tired of people passing laws because a small portion of the public are morons. Warning stickers, Law suits, safety devices, all to combat the morons. "Don't use hairdryer in shower", people who need to be pruned off from the population.

Let me bet, its politically incorrect to talk about people with low iq's, but we can pass laws to stop them.. Humm, small flaw, THEY ARE IDIOTS!

Why don't we just start a new class in school, Living within the law. So by the time they are in the 6th grade, they can know all the laws it takes to live and work in the USA. We can start with mandatory registering with the government (for males only), Hours you can travel and locations off limits, What food and beverages and what areas they can consume them in, Proper media and the allotted hours of viewing, Travel permits, Taxes, fines, and other government fees, Electronic device usage laws, Appropriate contact with other human beings, Appropriate communication, and Proper thoughts.

btw, I have 4 kids in school, guess how many "notice to parents" or just "Friendly Suggestions" I get about these subjects in public schools?

-
McCabe's Law: Nobody _has_ to do _anything_.

insanity

[macpeep]

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.

Re:insanity

[Sentry21]

It just takes a while before people pick up on the etiquette. But you sure as hell don't need a law for it.

It's not a matter of not picking up on the etiquette, it's a matter of stupid people that don't give a crap about other people, and/or are totally oblivious to the rest of the world and will remain indefinitely so. Some people genuinely forget, but a lot of people genuinely don't care at all, or say 'fuck you, it's a free country, I'm allowed to annoy as many people as I want for whatever reasons I want' or what-have-you.

--Dan

Re:insanity

[macpeep]

"Ahhh Singapore! Its a Fine City"

Don't get me started. I worked for six weeks in Singapore about two years ago. While it's very exotic and clean and all, it sure as hell is not what I would call a "fine city". If you like to live in a police state, sure. I prefer freedom.

What's wrong with restaurants and supermarkets?

[achurch]

One thing that I have not been able to comprehend is why talking on cell phones in public or semi-public places, in general, is such a bad thing. Of course I understand the problem with using them in theaters and the like, but then you're not supposed to talk during a play or movie anyway. But I've never seen anyone complain about people talking to each other (in person) in restaurants--well, I guess it depends on the restaurant--or supermarkets. Why, then, is it suddenly improper for people to talk on cell phones in such places, assuming they use a similar tone of voice?

Re:What's wrong with restaurants and supermarkets?

[Darren Winsper]

I haven't seen a new phone without vibrate in a long time. The reasons people don't use it are:

1) They're arseholes who like annoying people with their ringtone.
2) They don't have vibration. There's a lot of old phones without vibrate functions still out there.
3) They can't keep their phone in their pocket. This is typically because of things like women wearing clothes that don't have pockets or won't use them.
4) They don't know how to switch between ring-tone and vibrate.

Re:What's wrong with restaurants and supermarkets?

[Jucius Maximus]

"One thing that I have not been able to comprehend is why talking on cell phones in public or semi-public places, in general, is such a bad thing."

Once again, Scott Adams has just released a relevant dilbert strip about this very issue: http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert- 20020818.html

Re:What's wrong with restaurants and supermarkets?

[Jucius Maximus]

"4) They don't know how to switch between ring-tone and vibrate."

It probably would have been helpful for all cellphones shipped from the very beginning to default to vibrate mode. It would have caused the culture around them to evolve differently and the more clueless people to become accustomed to not having a normal ring unless they learned how to set it up (and thus learned how to turn it back to vibrate as well.)

Re:What's wrong with restaurants and supermarkets?

[Darren Winsper]

Well, I'm in the UK so things might be different. Every single phone that's free with a contract has vibrate, and I'm fairly certain the pre-pay ones all have vibrate now.

Re:Why not just use jamming technology

[Misch]

Why don't we just start a new class in school, Living within the law.

Because, in general, the current law doesn't allow Americans to exercise their second amendment rights when dealing with stupid people. Remove this restriction, and quite possibly the number of people acting stupidly will decrease.

Laws

[ottffssent]

A law banning it won't work. Like the laws that make it illegal for 15-year-olds to get pregnant. So the real question becomes "Would you pay $0.50 more for a cell-free performance?" That would nicely pay a theater employee or two to sit in movies and escort people whose phones ring to the parking lot, sans refund. It would also pay for the cellphone-using assholes who would stop going to the theater. At $7.50-$10.00 a ticket, a fifty-cent surcharge on cell-free showings is about 6%, less than what many people pay in sales tax.

A propos

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Statistics can prove any aspect of any argument, as can "numerous studies".

But as for studies and statistics, well, we know one of the greatest thinkers of our time has this to say:

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

Morpheus goes Apeshit.

[DarkHelmet]

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!"

Cellular phone rings

Morpheus: God damn motherf*cking people. Bwah, I need my pills, where are my pills?

Neo: Red or Blue?

violence?

[jchristopher]

Does anyone have any links to violent acts committed by people frustrated with someone else using a phone in a theater? i.e. grabbing and smashing the phone, punching them, dumping soda on them, etc.

I'm getting pretty close to violence, so I'm just wondering if I'm going to be the first.

Seriously

[sulli]

Theater owners are so dumbass they can't post a fucking policy about cellphones? Instead they need the Long Arm of the Nanny State to do it for them?

This is fucking ridiculous. The author of the bill is just doing this as a publicity stunt, but he's still an idiot.

Legislation is not the answer

[ikekrull]

Jamming the cellphones while in the theatre is.

A law should be passed to allow active jamming of cellphone signals by property owners on their property, rather than outlawing the use of cellphones in certain areas.

Why? because then the law will not be twisted to new interpretations - i.e. carry a cellphone at a public protest, and be arrested for it.

Try and use a cellphone to call someone to report police brutality and get arrested for it.

Think facing a search when entering a public place to 'check for cellphones' is too far fetched? After the airport security measures introduced after 9/11, I don't think so.

Just carrying a cellphone could be grounds for detention or search.

Another option is for manufacturers to voluntarily support some type of audible-ring supression on receipt of a certain signal - this is, of course, a similar type of strategy to the RIAA/MPAA - control the rings by modifying the hardware, but in this case, I don't think too many people will be actively hacking such a system, especially since it does not preclude non-audible alerts.

However, I still think the blanket jamming approach is best all round, since the cellphone industry has not responded to the problem by now.

The only situation I could see where jamming would be undesirable is in some type of emergency situation where a cellphone call getting through might be important e.g. fire/earthquake etc.

All in all, I think if cellphones have become a significant enough annoyance, then the government should let the people take action if they so desire, instead of the police - This might result in the manufacturers coming up with a real solution to the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug and pretending that building deliberately obtrusive alert mechanisms is a good thing to do.

Now, this might lead to johnny/julie hacker building a mobile cellphone jammer to keep obnoxious cellphone users out of his/her personal space, so such a law would need to be written carefully - perhaps you would need to obtain a permit to jam cellphones in your area and pass inspections to ensure you weren't jamming too large an area. It could be part of the building codes etc.

However, I believe that giving people the right to supress transmissions on non-essential spectrum on their own property shouldn't be a big problem.

Anyone else think along these lines?

Re:Legislation is not the answer

[anthony_dipierro]

A law should be passed to allow active jamming of cellphone signals by property owners on their property, rather than outlawing the use of cellphones in certain areas.

Seems to me that that is already legal. Can you site a law which makes it illegal?

Re:Legislation is not the answer

[suwain_2]

I'm no lawyer, but there are laws against causing "malicious interference" to any radio service, particularly licensed ones, such as cellular networks. And there are pretty big fines for it, too. (I believe up to two years imprisonment is an option as well?)

Plus, if a big phone company (say, Sprint, for example) sees that you're blocking their phones, they could probably sue you, or at least lodge a complaint against the FCC.

Re:Legislation is not the answer

[Dirtside]

Blanket jamming sounds like a great idea! I always hate it when doctors get emergency calls and have to rush off and, you know, save people's lives. Bastards. Is someone's life really more important than my moviegoing experience?

</sarcasm>

The answer to the social problem of idiots leaving their cellphone ringers on when it's inappropriate is to educate those idiots, not to punish everyone for the bad behavior of a few. "You cannot solve a social problem with a technological solution," remember?

Re:Legislation is not the answer

[bruckie]

Er... how would a property owner prevent the jamming signal from leaving their property? Radio waves don't respect property lines, or even building walls.

I certainly wouldn't want my (hypothetical) cell phone to not work just because I walk past a theatre on a public sidewalk.

--Bruce

Re:Valid reasons for leaving your phone on..

[DavidTC]

It's fine with me, if she'll refund the price of my movie ticket, and pay me for my wasted time (Which includes the entire time of the movie.)

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.

Fishburne disappoints me...

[guttentag]

Fishburne should have walked to the edge of the stage and pointed at the offending theater-goer.

"You are the One!" he would boom, waiting for his echo to die out before jumping off the stage and walking purposefully to 'the One.'

"The Oracle told me I would find the One. Why must there be One in every production? Why must she always be right?" He would then grab the phone from the One and point to the door.

"There are two ways out of this building. One is that door, the other is on a stretcher. If you want to get out of here alive, you must do exactly as I tell you. The lobby at the front of the theater is empty. Go! Now!" As the One leaves, Fishburne should call after him, "You forgot your phone! Never mind, I'll FedEx it to you!"

Haha

[jaavaaguru]

<sacrasm> Nice to see America being ahead of the rest of the developed world again! </sarcasm>

NYC going wussy?

[Observer]

They need a law about this in New York, a city whose inhabitants are famed for their in-your-face abrasiveness when they're annoyed? Ah well, another stereotype beats the dust, I suppose.

Karma: I am a number, not an adjective!

Great idea! Let's do it.

[Fred Ferrigno]

I vote for a box to make cell phones ring as you enter an establishment, so that whoever is at the door can hand out a clue.

I think this is the best possible solution if it can be done. Just a shielded hallway everyone has to pass through that tricks cell phones into thinking there's an incoming call. Anyone with experience in the area want to comment on the feasibility?

Dumb phones

[t_allardyce]

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...

Great idea!

[JimPooley]

This is a fucking good idea. The arseholes who leave their phones on in cinemas or theatres are ignorant scum and need to be taught a lesson.
We can start with dropping their mobile in a bucket of water. Then we can re-introduce the stocks, and give everyone in the cinema or theatre a ripe tomato to throw at the fuckwit.

I go to a cinema to watch the film. Not to listen to some arsehole wittering on about work, or his/her sex life, or the weather this afternoon.
I go to a theatre to watch the play, not to listen to some idiot too stupid to turn the keypad beep off, sending text messages to his stupid friends.
I go to the opera to listen to the music, not to listen to some fuck organising his bank account over the phone.
Arseholes who use their mobiles in a place of public entertainment deserve to be taught the errors of their fucking stupid ways.
Confiscation of phone and a stiff fine at the very least... Beats a good kicking from everyone in the audience.

Re:Singapore

[mccalli]

has already banned smoking in air-conditioned public places for a long time, and has recently banned the use of handphones in cinemas as well.

There are also places where eating that damned fruit in public is illegal too. Err....durian I think it's called. For those who haven't smelt this thing, don't knock the law until you've been stuck inside a lift that's had people eating durian inside it. You can smell the thing for miles. Literally.

Cheers,
Ian

Why do you think ....

[JaredOfEuropa]

...that Home Theatre sets and DVD's are selling so well? $1000 or so buys you a DVD and Surround amp/speakers that are good enough for most people, and this will get you close to the Real Deal. Close; the only thing lacking is a big screen, and large LCD's and projectors are becoming cheaper and cheaper.

If I can get the cinema experience at home with some friends, good seats, and palatable popcorn, then like hell will you ever see me again in a cinema with the noisy, inconsiderate knuckledraggers that are my fellow citizens.

Not so Great idea!

[Treeluvinhippy]

Well what if it was a genuine emergency.

I say, if the phone rings and whoever recieved the call isn't packing their shit and leaving within thirty seconds, than kicking rights to everyone in the theater.

Re:Not so Great idea!

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well what if it was a genuine emergency.

People have been going to public functions without having instantaneous communications to friends and family for 2000 years. Suddenly, it's impossible to have an emergency resolved without said communications technology?

If you can't trust things to proceed smoothly in your absence for three hours, don't go away for three hours. If your job requires you to be on call, you're ON CALL and shouldn't be going to theatres or the like anyway.

That having been said, making it law that a) cellphones have a vibrate function and b) cellphones OBEY an 'inhibit ring' signal, and c) cellphones OBEY an 'accept but cannot talk' signal, which means you hit 'talk,' stand up, go to the lobby, then start talking, is probably an acceptable compromise. This in no way, however, means that you have any rights on private property to operate random bits of electrical equipment. If it does, then why not demand that hospitals get around to RF-shielding their equipment, so that I can accept 'emergency calls' while I'm visiting my sick grandmother? Not a flame, not a troll, just putting things in perspective.

Re:Not so Great idea!

[Treeluvinhippy]

If you were at a movie theater and your sick grandmother passed away. I wouldn't mind that your phone beeped to let you know.

Quiet-Zones

[detritus.]

I'm glad someone brought this up... Blue Linx Inc. has been working on this for quite some time now. The question is whether it will be adopted by the industry or not (be sure to read the FAQ on Blue Linx's site). There's also another article mentioning Quiet-Zones here.

Re:Easy Solution

[CProgrammer98]

Can I ask for my money back when people crunch annoyingly loudly on theor popcorn? or slurp their coke annoyingly loudly? I HATE going to movies because of that - I rarely go now. I go if the kids really want to see something that requries an adult to be there but the popcorn munchers and coke slurpers long ago killed my enjoyment of movies.

They should enforce the rules they already have.

[Treeluvinhippy]

Most theaters I've been to already have a sign telling you to turn off cell phones, pager and other electronic devices. Is this enforced? No it isn't.

On the other hand there's also a big No Smoking sign. Now next time you go to a movie light up a big fat stoogie and see how long it takes before your escorted out of the theater.

Some /.er's in this thread advocate for the theaters to install jammers for their viewing convinence. WTF? Has crack suddenly become fashionable and I haven't noticed? Jesus people what if there is an emergency. Sure If some jackass is talking to his girlfriend they should be told to turn it off or leave, but if someone is sitting in the theater and recieves an emergency call they don't need bullshit from some overzealous geek on a phone etiqutte crusade.

For me personaly, I don't have as much a problem with cell phones in particular. There's always some jerk talking anyways. Little cool gadgets that beep are not as annoying as some guy explaining the plot to his dim-witted girlfriend.

People should just stand up to rude people and say something. Theaters need to enforce the rules already inplace. There's no need for jammers or any new laws, if theaters start getting a rep of enforcing the no cell phone ban they already have this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Instant Switch

[clickety6]

Unfortunately, it seems when a phone rings you only have three choices -

1. answer it
2. ignore it and wait until the caller gets bored and stops ringing or gets switched to your answer service
3. cut the call off straight away (at which piont they'll probably try and call back again

How hard would it be to have a button, which, when pressed, sent the caller directly to your answer service so they could leave a message? perhaps swicthicngt he phone off while it is ringing would do this, but that sounds kind of risky. A "switch to voice mail" button seems much more user friendly.

Re:Instant Switch

[Mwongozi]

Most modern Nokia phones, at least in the UK, already divert your call to voicemail if you punch Red. They also have a fourth, extra-spiffy option, a *silence* key that mutes the ringer, but does not disconnect the incoming call, so that you can then run outside and answer it.

Of course, you should have muted it in the first place, but there you go.

Is this really necessary?

[CrystalFalcon]

I mean, the social punishment for leaving your phone turned on (and it happens to ring) is extreme already, in the ballpark of lighting a cigarette in the theater. Does anybody really think that making it illegal will be an additional deterrent?

The legislature shall pass no law. . .

[kfg]

forbiding actors to yell " Turn your F---ing phone off!", or audiences from yelling " Asshole!"

I rather think that's all the law we need. Now, go do *your* part in enforcement.

KFG

Re:The legislature shall pass no law. . .

[Profane Motherfucker]

Actually, he yelled "Turn you FUCKING phone off."

How does one pronounce a dash? It's ok to swear. You get what the fuck I'm saying?

My solution

[mizhi]

We had a problem in the lab I work in with people keeping their ringers on; so we put out a policy that all phones must be on vibrate. That worked for about 5 days until people started forgetting. What made the situation worse was that people would leave cells on their desks while they went to the bathroom or went to smoke.

One day, this guy and his gf were out for a smoke and his cell went off four times. The second and third times it went off I picked up for him and hung up. The fourth time I decided to hide it. By now I was pretty pissed, so with the help of a friend, we hid it in one of the flourescent lightbulb cieling lights. This one you had to lift the bulb out of the socket to get the cell under the light. And we left it there. He came back about 10 minutes later and we had one of the guys in the lab who had his number ring his cell. When he realized that his cell was gone and he had no idea where it was, the fun began. It took him about a minute to identify the area the phone was in and then another 2 to figure out that it was above him. Meanwhile, the entire lab is laughing their asses off at them, myself especially.

The cells were on vibrate pretty regularly for a while, but every once in a while, someone slips up. And then I strike, much to the bemusement of the rest of the lab. It's a fun challenge finding inventive places to stash a cellphone. Next time, I plan on removing the chip from the back. In anycase, the whole lab is now so terrified that when they forget to put their cell phones on vibrate and they get a call, they pick it up in about .25s, look at me, and say "I got it!"

The lab has quieted down quite a bit. :-)

Overly broad legislation

[Myco]

Remember a post a couple months ago about Japanese theaters wanting to install paneling that would block cell-phone signals? I have the same objection now that I did then: this steps on responsible cell-phone users.

My cell phone's ringer is never on -- I set it to vibrate. I have gotten a call while in a theater -- I excused myself to the lobby, took the call, and went back in. No more disruptive than getting up to go to the john.

Cell phones aren't the problem -- inconsiderate people are. Some people rely on their cell phones -- in my case, if I hadn't taken the call right then, the caller wouldn't have made it to a party I was having later that evening. Other cases can be more serious -- some people carry cell phones in case of an emergency, or their wife going into labor, or what have you.

On the other hand, I don't pull over when I get a call while driving, so lump me in with the assholes.

No, not free speech

[DoctorFrog]

No, I wasn't talking about free speech. If I had been, I'd have been a heck of a lot more vehement, since that's a subject very near and dear to my heart. Letting your phone disrupt a public performance can't be considered free speech without distorting the concept more than is useful.

I just don't like excessive legislation. There is a certain amount of legislation which is necessary to make society function well; there is also a certain amount beyond which society functions less well. The exact points at which the two boundaries occur evolves with society, but I think we're well past the excess-law limit for our present society now. Adding new laws for trivial purposes like this only makes a bad situation worse.

It should be possible for any reasonable educated adult to stay within the law under most circumstances; having to hire a specialist to interpret the law for you should be a rare occasion. If it were so, perhaps lawyers would be respected more than resented, and it would be possible for our legislative and judicial systems to keep up with the important cases rather than processing unimportant trivialities.

Just where the line between trivial and important should be drawn is open to debate, of course, but when we haven't even worked out the legal implementation of fundamental issues like free speech or the appropriate limits of intellectual property tools, whether people get annoyed in theatres by morons without manners doesn't even blip the radar as far as I'm concerned. It's not that it isn't important to the theatre or the theatre-goers, just that it doesn't rise to the level of requiring the force of law, and the machineries of the law would be better directed at other targets in my opinion.

Yeah when they outlaw comercials

[gelfling]

(first off /. sux today - it's made me enter this twice)

Yeah fuck them and the golf carts they rode in on. They can ban cell phones when they outlaw the dozen commercials they run in front of the movie -yeah the ones just like the ones on TV I go to the movies to avoid. For live theatrical performances? OK but for everything else - get a fucking grip on yourself and your artistic freedom and shut the fuck up, Precious.

They day they BAN cell phones is the day they'll a brand spanking new bank of $5.00/minute pay phones in the lobby.

And Larry Fishburne? Yeah fuck you too and make some more movies with a Baldwin brother.

Is this a USA specific thing?

[GregWebb]

I'd normally say that the UK has a pretty individualistic, selfish culture (thank you very much, Mrs. T!) but I've _never_ heard a cellphone go off in a cinema. Haven't been to the theatre in years so can't say about that :-) Certainly haven't noticed an epidemic of the things in restaurants, either, and I've _never_ heard one go off during a church service. People do drive and talk, yes, but it's a quick way to get a big fine and people know that so, erm, hide the phone when they see cops :-)

Seriously, though, is the USA cellphone culture that much more selfish than UK? And, if so, why?

Re:What about Fire/EMS/LE folks?

[rlowe69]

I'm an Emergency Medical Technician on a US Public Health Service Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT). I am required to be accessable by pager or cell phone 24/7/365 ... Are you suggesting that ... I resign myself to never seeing another movie or play for the duration of my service?

Yes. Too bad, so sad. You love your job, but it comes with negatives. You probably have to make special arrangements when you go out of town as well, correct? Think of going to the theatre as a two hour road trip very far away from work. If you are really on call at every hour of every day I feel sorry for you. You'd have to vacation at home! Boring! ZZzzzzzz.....

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[Misch]

Nope. Not really. Think about it... a cell phone ringing... that disturbs most everyone who is in the theatre. An usher walking down the aisle to a person, who would then be almost expecting a phone call,is told "your phone is ringing sir", gets up and both walk out. It's hardly any more disruptive than a person getting up to go to the bathroom. Ushers will re-arrange seating in an aisle before the show so that these people are at the ends of the row.

My wife gets mad at me...

[graybeard]

when I turn off the phone. Not my cell phone (I don't have one, and I never expect to have one), my old-fashioned handset at home. It has a switch that turns off the ringer. She gets even madder when I ignore incoming calls. I turn if off so the damn ringing doesn't interrupt me.

How about Classrooms/Lecture Halls

[MicroBerto]

Universities should take this one step further and ban ringers in their classrooms and lecture halls as well. There is NOTHING more annoying to a professor than an annoying ass ring. Then you see the prick in question scrambling for his/her phone while the most annoying possible ring is blaring through the hall.

This is especially true during midterms. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the middle of a hard problem with 110% concentration when someone's damned phone blew off. My one EE professor had it right - He warned the class the first day, and then the first time he heard a ring, he screamed "TURN IT OFF", and said that the next one to ring was his, no questions asked. Everybody was sure to turn theirs off in his class after that. You'd have to see the fire in his eyes to understand.

Absurd

[BubbaFett]

Why do we feel the need to legislate and regulate everything? If the theater doesn't like it they should start kicking people out (and they should).

It's just rude and easily solved without laws

[sjbe]

Having a cellphone ring where people generally expect quiet is just rude. Not worthy of lawmaking. Just rude, especially in theaters. But the problem can be easily solved by the management of those establishments. Cell phone rings in innapproriate place, management asks the rude person to leave. They are perfectly within their rights to do so as long as they make it clear that this will happen in advance.

Using them while driving is a bigger problem which actually might be worthy of a law since it is actually dangerous and irresponsible on the same level as drunken driving.

That said I've never quite understood why people think talking on the phone is rude in a resturant unless it is one of those places where the conversation is relatively quiet. I mean the main reason I know most people go to the resturant is to socialize and they might be rude to their guests by talking on the phone but if I'm sitting at another table, what do I care unless they are somehow interfering with my meal? Maybe I'm just not bothered by that particular instance much.

I've seen a number of posts talking about how people get calls (and shockingly, answer them) in classes. There is an easy solution for this. If I were the teacher, there would be an immediate quiz. Not just any quiz, one that most of the class would be likely to fail. And I would tell the whole class right at the beginning of the semester that there would be one of these nasty quizzes everytime I heard a cell phone ring. (if I was feeling especially evil I'd take the results into account *after* any curving was done to grades) And then I'd just let peer pressure do its thing. Somehow I think folks would get the hint.

Is that my phone, or...?

[DoctorFrog]

I've often wondered why cell phone manufacturers don't allow you to record a short sound clip to use as your "ring"; that way everyone could have their own distinct alert. Of course then you wouldn't get the amusing mass clutch as everyone tries to answer the same sound, but everyone could vie to have the most amusing sound clip.

Hmmm, wait a minute... I'm proposing to give these same idiots who can't turn the ringer off the power to pick the sound it makes... "Is that my phone, or did you fart?"

Not just cell phones

[Bastian]

If I'm busy, I will let the answering machine pick up the regular phone. If it's something important, I can always call back right away.

Of course, this always creates some issues with guests when I do this. The look of excruciating pain on their faces is priceless. . .

There should be a law, but not this one.

[hawk]

Instead, the law should along this lines:

"No action shall lay in the civil law, nor any criminal charges be preferred, for the death, maiming, or torture, nor for injury of any other kind, by the patrons of any entertainment establishment when said injury or death is of a person whose electronic device, save for alarms on pacemakers, heart monitors, or other life saving device, interrupts the performance."

:)

hawk, esq.

Oh, and for those who find the law pointless due to the messages now before the movie: the ability of the theatre to remove someone in cuffs and detain until the police pick him up will make a *big* difference . . .

#1 Legitmate concern

[xenocide2]

Is emergency health care workers who are on call. Would you jam the signal of an ER surgeon without him knowing it?

Re:#1 Legitmate concern

[suwain_2]

This is a "legitimate" concern, but, as someone else pointed out -- there are other places where cell phones don't work -- subways, tunnels, under bridges... Most hospitals still prohibit cell phones. And they just deal with it.

Why not just make it well known (perhaps through signage) that "Cellular service is blocked in these premises. Those who are 'on call' are advised not to enter." The only "downside" is that on-duty paramedics, etc. won't be in the movie theater.

I don't believe legislation is the way to go -- theaters should just kick out anyone whose phone goes off. I keep my phone on vibrate most of the time, but turn it off entirely when I go to the movies -- I don't want calls. If I'm ever "on call" for something, I'll keep it on vibrate and leave to take a call. So jamming might not be the solution, but it's better than passing legislation. My "preferred solution" is to just make it well-known that if your phone rings, the theater staff can and will throw you out.

My approach

[hawk]

I tell "the wedding story."

In law school, another student had a obnoxious watch that was constantly going off in class and elsewhere. I was a groomsman at his wedding. Shortly before the ceremony, the bride took the watch, handed it to me, and ordered me to grind it beneath the heel of my boot if it made a single peep.

I had my hopes up, but it didn't go off. So given a chance with a cell phone . . .

I've had exactly one (1) cell phone go off in three years after this.

Additionally, if one did go off, the student would not be allowed back into the classroom until after a formal meeting with the Director of Academic Affairs (a lesser dean-like being) and myself.

hawk

Oh, and . . .

[hawk]

That one wa a student with a borrowed cellphone with a child in the hospital in serious condition. I would have OK'd that phone, anyway.

May as well voice my opinion too

[WebMasterJoe]

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.

but . . .

[hawk]

. . . how will you feel when 400 die in a jail explosion? hmm?

:)

hawk

Unconstitutional

[anthony_dipierro]

Cell phone use is a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You misinterpret me

[sulli]

I'm talking about the rights, and responsibilities, of the theater owners. They can set their own goddamn policy if they want to - and I think they should. I would be severely disinclined to go to a theater where cellphone use is allowed. But it's not the role of the Nanny State to require it! If some theater owner wanted to allow, encourage or even require cellphone use, that's the owner's right, and it should not be infringed by Bloomberg or some publicity-seeking councilmember.

Cell phone jammer device

[Sebastopol]

So does anyone have a schematic for a portable cell-phone jamming device? Something that runs off two AA batteries that will neutralize all cell phones within earshot? I'd love to carry one around on the bus/subway/theater/cinema.

You can't have it both ways

[WIAKywbfatw]

Driving too fast is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.

Similarly, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone is dangerous, so we pass legislation to outlaw it to discourage it from happening.

It doesn't matter that some people can drive fast or drive and talk on a mobile phone without detriment to their driving skills, it matters that not all people can do it.

In your exact words, "setting arbritray non-scientific standards is a mal-application of justice". Is it? Or is it just what's practical and sensible?

addendum

[Capsaicin]

sorry, I've simply ignored the most substantive criticism you raised.

you are incorrect that existing statute provides no relief. Theaters can make (almost)whatever rules they want ans kick out anyone who isn't following them.

Well, it's more likely contract than statute law, but, jurispridential pedantry aside, the point is well made. Of course you'll remember that the doctrine of 'privity of contract' ensures that the remedy is available only to the theatre, but not the patron. Not that criminalising such behaviour provides the patron with any remedy either, mind you. The hope rather, is that it simply removes their need for one.

Again, let me emphasise that I never intended to express support for the position that common curtesy should be enforced by means of the criminal law. The point is that the law, and the legislature, do have a role in balancing the contending freedoms of citizens.

Sign Off, Turn off, breathe easy.

[Tokerat]

If I don't want to be bothered at all, i sign off IM services. It's not a required software component on any computer except Windows XP machines.

My cel can be shut off too, and although I didnt make it clear in my last post, I usually turn it off or leave it home. My point is there is no reason to have people like those assholes who dress in cel phone costumes and smash the phones of peopel they see using them runnign around. If it annoys you then, in the words of Don Rickles, "Why don't you go buy a horse, and live in the mountians and dont' bother anybody." And no, it's definately not nice to yak it up in a quiet theatre. But it's also not nice to throw drinks and soda at someone who's phone beeped because their mother was just ruched to the hospital after her house burned down and someone needed them. Now do you understand both angles?

I wouldnt' be bothered by a National ID. Do I have something to hide? I'm sure it wouldnt' be at totalitarian as the possibility allows.

Re:Bluetooth

[Tokerat]

...And now it even works with my Mac. Mods, the man deserves a +1 Informative

Re:Idiot, buy a DC to AC converter.

[Tokerat]

Yea, and 120V AC is just what I need to make my cel phone hands free.

You did not make this putt, ya jackass.

another common sense law?

[pinkUZI]

Is this stupid or what? Do we have to pass laws that people cannot fart or pick their teeth in public as well? This is just a common courtesy thing. If you're so important you can't possibly turn your phone off, then at least put the darn thing on vibrate. But do we really need legislation here? I don't think so. I go to meetings all the time and we used to get interrupted quite frequently by cell phones, until the glares that one got when receiving a call during a meeting got worse and worse. Now the worst case is someone getting vibrated then excusing themselves politly. If this has already happened in the business world, where cell phones have been the longes, then I think it is only a matter of time before we start to see cell phone ettiquite being practiced elsewhere.

Just some food for thought. Man, there were a lot of mis-spellings in that post...

All that's needed is a ten cent switch

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why can't they get this right? All cell phones should have a real, gosh-honest mechanical switch on them that switches from ringer to buzzer or off. On my phone you have to navigate through at least four levels of menus, and use probably a dozen key presses to make this change. Most people can't program their VCR's, which is probably twice as easy. So, they don't turn off the ringer in theaters and everybody is clamoring for laws? Wrong solution.

Re:Serves you right

[DNS-and-BIND]

They are breaking the clearly posted rules. The commuter bus is typically a quiet place where people sleep. Sleeping is impossible with alarm clocks constantly going off.

Re:what about people who are oncall?

[Russ Nelson]

Interesting. "dumbass", eh? I wonder how you would feel if you couldn't get in touch with your doctor and you needed him. You would die, I suppose, and good riddence.
-russ