Amusement Park Bans PDAs and Smartphones

Ant writes in with news that an amusement park in the UK is trying out a ban on smartphones and PDAs, with the intent to enable families actually to have fun together. The press release says that from May 25 to June 1, adults found using a PDA will be asked to drop it off at a "PDA Drop Off Zone" — no word on what happens if they refuse. But both the Sun and BoingBoing, which picked up their brief story, strike a more ominous note with the claim that "special wardens" will confiscate the devices. If the experiment is deemed a success the park may make the ban permanent.

Comments

Re:I understand their point...

[Nikker]

Well your pedo argument really doesn't mean much as cameras are still no problem apparently. I guess this means they have to wait till they get home to upload it to their pedo pals?
At least you got an opportunity to bring up the relation of pedophiles and a persons ability to walk around with what they want.

Re:Oh Please...

[Ambiguous Coward]

What. The. Fuck. "There is now law that says you must be allowed..." What the hell is that? Since when were activites implicitly blacklisted and then only allowed once added to a whitelist? This is not how the system works, and if you believe otherwise, you're practically *asking* to be fucked by the system. Laws are there to tell you what you *can't* do--and, in some special, alphabet-soup-agencies-which-are-only-allowed-to-exist-during-a-time-of-war-such-as-the-inane-war-on-drugs (i.e. FBI, CIA, EPA, etc.) cases, tell you *how* you can do it--and that is all. If there is no law stating you can *not* do something, then you *can* do it. Not the other way around.

There are laws stating you can *not* steal someone's property. This amusement park business is a slightly weirder case, as you agree to certain terms upon entering the park. HOWEVER, you can agree to a contract all you want, but when it comes to a court of law--and this may sound obvious, but it often seems to be confusing to some people--only the valid parts are valid. That is, if I sign a contract saying that you will let me onto your property for $100, but you can kill me while I'm there, everything but the murder is valid. That last clause is clearly invalid.

In this case, I have a hunch that whatever the courts might say about it, it won't ever come to that. It's very easy to make up some trivial case where surrendering the device is absolutely not an option. And claiming that you didn't know you were agreeing to some clause in a contract has proven to be remarkably successful in the courts.[citation needed] So some people will present perfectly valid reasons why the rule is inane, and the "special allowances" will propagate down the chain of validity inside of a week. This "test" will fail miserably, and nothing will come of it.

Back to the original cause of my response, though: Seriously. What the fuck. No law that says you must be allowed? AUGH! You're killing me here. And even if it *were* required that there be laws *allowing* you to do things, examine the Constitution. It *very explicitly* states that if there is no federal law stating you *can't*, and no state law stating you *can't*, THEN YOU CAN.

Whoa is me.

-G