Slashdot Mirror
House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls
An anonymous reader tips news that the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill that would ban voice calls from mobile devices on airplanes. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote. Similar efforts are underway in the Senate. There was no opposition to Shuster's bill in the House committee, and the FCC received a flood of support for such a measure when they asked for public comment. In an op-ed published Monday, Shuster wrote, "In today’s world, enriched as it is by technology, we are bombarded by data, opinions, and potential distractions. Few limits to this flow of information are necessary, partly because people can typically turn it off, disconnect from it, or go elsewhere if they choose. But in the close confines of an airplane cabin – where passengers will still be able to use their mobile devices for texting, emailing, working, and more – there is no chance to opt out. So for those few hours of flight spent with 150 strangers, we can all wait to make that phone call. It’s just common sense and common courtesy."
Don't you love it when they're legislating "common courtesy"?
I've looked through the Constitution, but I don't see where Congress gets the power to ban telephone calls on planes.
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?
How is someone talking endlessly on their cell any different from the two people directly behind me chatting for hours? Let's just pass a law that everyone must not generate more than 20db for the entire flight (sarcasm).
Next step; pass law forcing airlines to duct tape the mouths of anyone not in first class, you know, for "safety" reasons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ban voice calls on planes, in airport lounges, subways, resturants and cinema. We need legislation so that the state and lawyer can become involved in the enforcement of manners. Also we need laws on the correct position of toilets seats, cutlery positions after meals and the poking and prodding of bodily orrifices in publice places. Conversations on planes should be banned as well as they annoy surrounding passengers as well as children, infants and movies..........Or we could just ensure that airlines provide earplugs on request.
... and yet they're OK with the TSA sticking fingers up your bucket?
Because the Republicans want Small Government and don't want government to intrude on our lives. Except when they do.
So a republican is legislating good manners? I thought they were against the government telling us how to live our lives.
What's wrong with allowing the airlines set the policy on their own planes?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?
Because I hate it when people start talking on their cellphone in a theater during a feature presentation!
There oughta be a LAW .....
Yep, it's about that stupid. Theaters have done just fine throwing people out of movies without the help of legislation for many decades.
Well, I hate to say it, but there should be a Constitutional challenge to this.
Previously, it was technological and safety issues that put a hold on this. Now neither any longer applies.
"Congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Note it does not allow exceptions like "but lots of peeeeeeepul really waaaaaaaaant it". That's why there is a deliberately difficult amendment process. And no, Congress doesn't get to carve out subsets of life and strip your rights. Safety is one thing, I waaaaaaant it is something else.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Seriously, these are the same group of ppl that are telling NASA that they MUST build the SLS.
Likewise, that the DOD MUST build another 1000 M1A2 tanks, even though the DOD has 3000 of them and desperately wants to bring the line down for several years to make changes to the tank so that it can handle IEDs and other items.
And the same group of ppl that refuse to deal with our illegal alien issues.
And The same ones that built the NSA to spy on Americans and foreign leaders.
And the same group that destroyed America's economy back in 2005-7, leading to the global recession.
These GD neo-cons are destroying America.b
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Personally I cant stand the long adverts at insane volumes pushed down the PA system of planes. Loads of 'buy our gifts' and 'this is our hire car partner' sometimes in several languages so this can go on for 10 minutes. Why is it always blasted out at ear bleeding volume? I would prefer phones, at least then you can complain to the noisy person and at least have a theoretical chance of peace.
except it won't apply to politicians... of course :-p
mobile phones may have been a problem for aircraft in the past, but the regulations for certifying avionics since 2007 are much stricter. older aircraft designs of course aren't subject to current rules which is a pity (since the rules are designed to increase safety) but majority of airline aircraft would be fitted with upgraded avionics anyway, and any upgrades would be subject to current rules (including their integration into existing aircraft electrical and flight control systems).
refer FAR25.1317 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...
even if you fly in smaller aircraft, if it has avionics installed post-2007 you're likely covered by a similar rule;
FAR23.1308 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...
If you recall a while back the NSA was upset because calls made from planes were harder to listen in on. How is someone talking on the phone any worse than the two people next to you having a conversation or talking on the airline provided phone? Once again the media just plays along with a obvious lie.
How about adding old fashioned phone booths to airplanes? I can already see the Dr. Who episode...
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
FreedomCount--;
Nonsense. There is no First Amendment issue here. You can talk all you want OFF the plane. There are dozens of limitations on talking / speech now that are perfectly valid - the idea behind the first amendment is to prevent the government from muzzling dissent. You can dissent all you want. Just not in the middle of the road. Not in the middle of a theatre. Not on an airplane.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Will never work. No more than you can legislate away hatred and bias.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...so lets make a federal case out of it.
For the life of me, I can't find anything about airplanes or phones in the Constitution. But then, I can't find Constitutional authority for 95% of the legislation that comes out of the swamp or for 99% of the federal bureaucracy. "Congress shall make no law...", "... shall not be infringed": ignored daily.
Look, I hate and despise people that are rude enough to use a phone on an airplane.
But when Republicans talk about unwarranted government intrusion on our lives, THIS is what they should mean. Not healthcare, not abortion, not welfare. THIS is exactly the kind of laws that our founders were afraid of.
We should not be making rude behavior, no matter how rude it is, a crime.
What is worse, the same effect could have been done in an ethical manner. Simply require that all phone calls be done next to but not in the bathroom. Or, if you want to make it a money maker, pass a law that requires airlines to collect a $5 per minute tax for phone calls made in flight - and allow the airlines to add their own fee on top of that, up to a maximum of $20 per minute.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Why the bleeding shit does Congress *need* to do this? Why can't this be left up to the airlines as a business decision?
Because, if you bothered to RTFA, Congress and the FAA have received thousands of complaints asking them to do this very thing. Perhaps they are just trying to do what their constituency wants?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It does seem quite sad and questionable why airlines don't simply make this a policy, instead of it needing to be made federal law. I guess no one really trusts the airlines to do something sensible like that.
Seriously, is this really such a pressing thing that it needs to be done at the Federal level, really? If it's a problem, let the airlines create "non-voice communicating" sections in the airplane as a market differentiator and allow the people who want to quietly read tp opt into those areas. Maybe make them infant free zones as well.
Since most airlines have in-flight phones anyway these days?
Interesting that this was not an issue with the (expensive) wired satphone handsets that are already in many airplane cabins.Passengers were somehow able to avoid making a nuisance of themselves with wired handsets... what makes mobile phones so different?
Different frequency bands, the sat phones were standardized and approved by the FAA, there's only one antenna to shield against (or plan for)...
Lots of surprisingly valid technical reasons, actually.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
He's got a point there. There's no law saying you can't talk in the middle of a theater (during a showing); such a thing would probably violate the 1st Amendment. However, theater owners are free to implement policies against such disruptions, and are able to throw you out if you violate their policies, and this is the reason you can't actually talk in a movie: you'll be asked to leave (maybe, these days a lot of theaters do a terrible job of enforcing such rules).
Talking on an airplane should be covered by the same method: airline policy should prohibit it. However, what do you do when people ignore the rule? Ask them to leave? You can't do that since there's nowhere to go when you're at 30,000 feet. And look at how bad the theater experience has gotten these days; the only recourse at most places when people talk too much is to go ask for your money back, because the theater doesn't want to confront anyone. This is probably why people are demanding a law.
Smokers have to go outside to indulge - just a thought.
Society needs a punching bag. Preferably an enormous, lard filled, squishy one.
If you read the article itself you will see that the bill actually bans voice communications through mobile electronics - not just phone calls. As written it would appear the bill would ban phones as well as skype, hangouts and other voice related calls. I suppose this cascades right over to video calls as well.
I find it rather questionable that just months after the FCC finally admitted that there was no reason to ban mobile electronics the "authorities" are once again making a move to regulate mobile electronics. It's not even based on a rationale reason, instead the reason has now become "because I don't like it". Makes one wonder if a constitutional argument can be made here based on freedom of speech - this seemingly is an infringement without justification. Not that Congress has ever cared about such things before.
What happens with all those phones installed on the backs of the seats in the older variants of planes? I flew last year and saw them, although it's not clear to me whether or not they have become decorative or still function.
You aren't supposed to use a phone in a theater. It's courtesy not to use a phone in lots of cases.. in the line while waiting for your sandwich, in a meeting or conference with lots of other people, etc.
Make a courtesy area that people are allowed to use their phone and make an airline rule that you can't use a phone and that is fine. Making it illegal because you think it's rude is ridiculous. What if there is an ACTUAL emergency. My parents aren't very good with text and they always know when I'm on a flight. If I got a call from them while I was flying it might be a life-or-death thing.
Your wife is 9 months pregnant and you get a call from her doctor, do you answer it?
Because, after all, if you're in a plane (even if it's hijacked), you shouldn't be allowed to call 911 or your loved ones on your cell phone.
Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
... then you don't need to legislate it.
Thanks for handing over more power to your overlords, subjects.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I was going to reply with a rant about my last trip and the passenger of unusual size who tried to wedge himself onto the seat next to me, to our great mutual discomfort, but instead I'll just ask a question.
Standard economy class seats on United are about 18" between the armrests. What would make someone who had to be at least 30" across the hips, think he could fit into that seat? Was he hoping for an empty seat next to him? Did he think he could lift the armrest and take half the adjacent seat? What is the thought process here?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Until you can board a plane without a ticket, and without going through TSA, an airplane is not a public place, and the first amendment does not apply. Please read it, thanks.
I don't like cell phone use on an airplane any more than the next guy, I also don't feel like it is congresses job nor right to pass such a law. Airplanes are private property, owned by a private company. It should be left to the company to decide whether to allow cell phone usage on the plane or not. I don't understand how this isn't common sense.
Because of importanter-than-thou shitheads who fly MUST make this phone call RIGHT DAMN NOW DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM AND HOW MUCH I MAKE? For assholes like that, "policy" isn't enough, it needs to be law.
Fuck that guy, he can wait. Or, he can make calls from his office and fly overnight.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
My first thought was that they could never do that because then most of them would end up in jail. Then I remembered that they would be exempt like they always are, so my idea stands. I hate loud annoying phone callers in public places. However making a law against it is a horrible idea. (except from the standpoint of trying to make everyone a criminal, then its an amazing law) I have a better solution. Lets bring back the stocks at the town square and if you are an asshole on a plane and get voted off, then you have to voluntarily spend 4 hours in the stocks in order to regain the privilege of flying on a plane. Or something. People just suck. I want to take my kids and go to Europe before all the countries go bankrupt. But they are too young. There is no way I am subjecting 200 people to listening to my two 6 year olds go apeshit after 7 of the 11 hour flight. That's just rude and awful. But people will do it. I probably do a bunch of other things that annoy the hell out of people. Sorry for that. :)
Southwest, Delta and Jet Blue (at least) have done precisely that.
And somehow we've managed to watch movies in peace for about a hundred years. Shocking.
You're aware the movie sound comes over earphones, right?
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking. It does not guarantee you the right to talk wherever and whenever you want to. For example:
All I can add is: Thank You.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight? Yes, I imagine people squawking on their mobile phones the whole flight would be annoying... and not a desirable thing. But I don't see a "Congress shall have the authority to regulate transportation of persons and their in-transit communication methods" clause in the constitution. Is the concept of enumerated powers finally so utterly and completely lost?
You can go home and eat there. You have no right to eat at the counter with the Whites. You have the right to walk to work, so you have no right to sit in the bus at all, let alone in the Whites section. You can make your personal windtrap, so you have no right to have a drink from the Whites water fountain.
Learn to love Alaska
Until you can board a plane without a ticket, and without going through TSA
I did that quite recently. Drove up to the airport, got the keys to the airplane, walked out to the ramp, did a pre-flight check, got in the cockpit and started the engine. Did I mention it was a Cessna 172?
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
The situation isn't quite analogous. There are laws that allow the theatre to throw the loudmouth out. For airplanes, there are laws that say they can't.
I swear we're living in a dammed nanny state here. People can't politely ask people on a plane (where the ambient noise is 90db+ anyway) to keep it down, but would rather go whining for Congress to make a Law about it? We've been lied to all these years about why we're supposed to have cell phones off during flight, and if cell phones actually caused problems you'd have found flights with lots of Al-Quaida on them leaving their cell phones on... finally get rid of the lies, and people want to cling to their nanny's skirts. Get a life people, and grow a pair!
It's not common courtesy and it's not common sense -- now it's the law.
Look, I'm on the side of the commenters too. I don't want to be forced to sit on a plane and hear dozens of phone calls. I'd much prefer the silence.
But there's no way in hell that I want to obligate other people to not doing something just for my own convenience!
Laws weren't ever meant to make life easier or more convenient. Laws were meant to stop people from directly harming each other. I've zero interest in telling people what they should be doing in general. This is very much a generational issue "there must be a law or a rule to tell me how I ought to behave" is something right out of a religious text. I don't need help deciding how to behave. I don't want others to have that help either.
Welcome to today's infinite surveillance. It's the only way to enforce these kinds of behavioural restrictions.
I do it on jets twice a year me and the other 20 people all showed up at the hangar, we drank beer while waiting for the pilot, boarded, and took off
Embraer E170 or a E175 with nice couches and awesome huge leather seats. Cockpit door was open the entire time as well. You can easily fly without dealing with the silly commercial airline rules or being violated by the TSA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Exactly!
Let the airlines decide their own policy, but there's no reason something like this needs to be illegal. Talk about overreach (isn't this guy a Republican, one of the folk who despise intrusive "nanny state" meddling?).
I get that people on phones would be annoying, as would people singing "The Song that Never Ends" or discussing the Kardashians, but there is no need to legislate this issue. A well-timed "Sir/Ma'am, it is the policy of the airline to restrict calls in-flight, thank you for your consideration of your fellow passengers" should take care of those who decide they MUST call someone in the air.
Congratulations: you've realised that there are some things which can't be easily answered with absolute statements.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
This isn't common sense, this is rabble rousing nonsense.
Loud talkers annoy me - should congress ban loud talkers? Should they pass a law about phones in theaters? Should they pass a law about horribly annoying and stupid reality shows?
This is grandstanding junk and it's even more shameful a (R) is involved in it. If enough people are annoyed by it then the airlines can ban it themselves.
Everyone thinks they are a precious fucking snowflake with a right not to be annoyed by someone else.
You have it bass ackwards. Nobody is doubting the airlines' right to ban the phones, he is questioning Congress' right.
PUS? I don't think they exist.
Remember that part of the safety spiel regarding compliance with all "lighted signs, posted placards, and crewmember instructions "?
I'm pretty sure that only applies to health/safety stuff (seat belts, seat backs, tray tables, smoking), but if a legal change is really necessary, just add cell phone use to the list of things crewmembers can give you orders about.
Honestly, though, I think making piddly stuff like this illegal is an unnecessarily intrusive example of legislative zeal.
Crap - my mod points expired yesterday or you'd be getting some from me.
I fly a lot and there is something about being on a plane that acts as sort of a social amplifier. If you're a nice guy in real life they tend to be nicer on planes (helping old ladies with their luggage, etc.). If you're an asshole in real life then you'll be a bigger asshole on a plane. You know the type...puts his computer bag in the overhead bin depriving a later passenger of a place to put their luggage. Reclines the seat all the way back...right into the lap of the person behind them.
It's bad enough sitting at the airport gate listening to some self-important, narcissistic asshole talk for hours on a cellphone loud enough for the whole damn airport to hear them. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit beside him on a plane for the next 3 hours. I'd club the motherfucker unconscious with my laptop and probably get a heroes welcome from the other passengers.
These are two different arguments. The FCC specifically regulates the airwaves and interferences they may cause with other airwaves. Their decision to approve or deny approval of cell phone usage should only be based on this. We all know that cell phones or pretty much any FCC regulated device does not harm the communications or navigations of an airplane. That is the only thing the FCC should be basing their opinion on. Why would they even ask the public for their opinion?
The government regulating usage is a whole different thing. Airlines are private, they should have the right to form their own rules. If a particular airline bans cell phone usage, so be it. Maybe I will pick that airline because I don't want to be bothered. Maybe I will pick the one that allows phones because I want to chat my whole trip.
All of the above considered... people DO NOT TALK on their phones anymore. They txt and scroll through Facebook/Twitter/Pinterest etc. The people that are fighting to ban phones because they think they may be bothered by people talking are really just shooting themselves in the the foot. Let people have their phones and they will site contently staring at them without making a noise.
Is that you Westley?
No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?
Because people will ignore airline policies, in fact you'll have enough people ignoring the law. Practically no-one follows instructions given to them by flight attendants, thats why they have to go through the cabin and put tray tables and seat backs in the right position. People refuse to follow simple, straightforward and sensible instructions simply because they don't want to.
People are just jerks really.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Because, after all, if you're in a plane (even if it's hijacked), you shouldn't be allowed to call 911 or your loved ones on your cell phone.
Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
Erm exceptions that prove the rule.
In a hijack scenario, no-one gives a crap if you've used your phone. However if you're not being hijacked everyone cares about not hearing your inane yammering to your equally vapid friends.
It may not occur to you, but laws are not rock solid things that can never be broken, ever. Laws are actually quite flexible things, even when something is expressly verboten under ordinary circumstances can be broken with little to no consequence under extraordinary circumstances. To elaborate (in Australia) you can hit and run (with a car) if you can demonstrate your life was in danger and you had no other avenue of escape, you'll still go to court but you'll leave a free person. This is why we have courts, judges and lawyers instead of having summary punishments with no appeals. In fact if the lawyers didn't fill this very valuable role in our societies we would have burned them at the stake long ago.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Instead of pontificating on non-related situations, why not read the whole bill here
Or, since it is so short, here it is:
HR 3676 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3676
To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 9, 2013
Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act of 2013'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CELL PHONE VOICE COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications
`(a) Prohibition- The Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations--
`(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; and
`(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in paragraph (1) any--
`(A) member of the flight crew on duty on an aircraft;
`(B) flight attendant on duty on an aircraft; and
`(C) Federal law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity.
`(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:
`(1) FLIGHT- The term `flight' means, with respect to an aircraft, the period beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when the aircraft lands.
`(2) MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `mobile communications device' means any portable wireless telecommunications equipment utilized for the transmission or reception of voice data.
`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The analysis for chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 41724 the following:
`41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications.'.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight?
Follow the link to the actual legislation where they state
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce
among the several States).
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Airplanes that are commercial scheduled air carriers are the only planes covered by the bill.
Commercial air transport is already regulated under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce among the several States).
See, you climbed all the way up there on your soap box, wrapped yourself with the flag, all for naught.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Ok, once again. Why does it need to be a law? You've just mentioned some reasons why it's unpleasant and that a lot of people don't like the behavior.
He can also get audience participation with his cell phone call. That ought to show the listener(s) on the other end, just how pro he is.
Given that everyone picks their airline based on price and price alone, this absolutely make sense. You get what you pay for.
Like I said, the constitution authorized the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
I guess you can appeal to God, but the constitution is pretty clear.
I'm not sure your appeal will be heard.
Even God has no time for ACs.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Let's criminalize things other people do that we don't like but which don't deprive us of life, property, or liberty. Then tomorrow, let's bitch and whine about the NSA and the growing police state! Yeah, isn't cognitive dissonance a wonderful thing!
This has to be approved and/or actually pass to even get towards attempting to ban someone's phone from being used. Whether it is even legal or not at that point is going to likely fall on "not a legal bill", as the first amendment doesn't stop just because someone else doesn't like it - which is what sums up this bill.
If you can't keep people from using their mobile phones in church with the lingering threat of eternal hellfire, you wont keep them from using them on a plane either. The bathroom cue will just grow longer.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
Ah, yes, the commerce clause. When something is otherwise unconstitutional, turn to that ambiguous piece of trash. I care more about the spirit than of the literal language, and I seriously don't think it's appropriate that the government has abused that clause to this degree.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Bullshit. That's the exact same reasoning they use for free speech zones. The entire country, and outside the country, is a free speech zone. They have zero constitutional authority to do such things.
the idea behind the first amendment is to prevent the government from muzzling dissent.
Free speech doesn't stop at protecting people who criticize their government, you know. The first amendment protects all sorts of speech.
Just not in the middle of the road. Not in the middle of a theatre. Not on an airplane.
Your reasoning is terrible, and it's clear that free speech means nothing to you.
Take your protest permits and your free speech zones and shove them up your fucking ass, fascist.
Thank you Dave Raggett
This is probably why people are demanding a law.
And they are wrong for doing so.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's not that they can't be easily answered with absolute statements; it's that people have a fundamental misunderstandings of the constitution and people's rights.
Thank you Dave Raggett
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking.
Then the government could just ban all manner of speech. In reality, free speech protests all speech and the first amendment makes *no such distinctions*. The fact that our government is violating the constitution doesn't mean that it isn't what it is, and your examples just demonstrate the government's seething hatred of our rights.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Most comments here seem to be opposed to the ban, but the majority of the public are in favor of it, so the Congress is just representing them in passing this. I would prefer to let the airlines set their own rules and let the market work, but I'm giving a devil's advocate position to all the libertarian comments here.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I assume it is the same authority that gives them the right to ban smoking, restrict knives and guns, and force you to obey any order from a flight attendant.
The national airspace is regulated by the FAA, just like the national electromagnetic spectrum is regulated by the FCC. Since both are a national trust, regulated by the federal government, they get to make all the rules, with very little input by the masses.
~~
Thank god. The last thing I need is to be sitting next to a moron that thinks since the person on the other end of the phone is far away he has to yell into the phone to be heard. Cell phones have no business on a plane, bus, train or car.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking.
Then the government could just ban all manner of speech. In reality, free speech protests all speech and the first amendment makes *no such distinctions*. The fact that our government is violating the constitution doesn't mean that it isn't what it is, and your examples just demonstrate the government's seething hatred of our rights.
the courts have established lots of 1st Amendment exceptions. Suggest you educate yourself.
Ok, then how do you propose the airline handle things when a passenger violates their policy, if they don't have the ability to allow the air marshall to beat him and put him in cuffs? A rule with no ability to enforce it is worthless. I suppose you could make it so violating airline policy is a crime, which would then allow the air marshall to tase the person and cuff him, but that's not much different from just making this law, plus it creates a slippery slope where violating *any* policy is a crime and could get you tased, even very minor infractions.like staying in the toilet too long.
The courts could establish that the first amendment doesn't protect any speech at all and it wouldn't affect my opinions in the least. Maybe you should get some opinions of your own. Sad how "the land of the free" has so much mindless authority worship.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Ok, then how do you propose the airline handle things when a passenger violates their policy, if they don't have the ability to allow the air marshall to beat him and put him in cuffs?
Don't deal with those customers anymore. Let the airlines figure this out; I really don't care. What I'm opposed to is making disgusting laws like this where the government infringes upon people's rights (private property and free speech rights).
Thank you Dave Raggett
Very simple. Charge offenders a hefty fine. As is demonstrated by the fact that nobody uses the phones already available on planes due to the hefty fee, this should be a more than suitable deterrent, without having to get the law involved.
If the government banned you from talking on your phone in someone elses house, or in Walmart, people would be looking at this in an entirely different way.
If the airline banned calls, then your point would stand.
Wow, people are slow. Ban them from future flights on your airline if they violate policy.
That can be temperred in various ways: 3 strikes rule; time based ban (ex. banned for N months); pay a big fine to re-instate priviledges; etc.
It'd even be more flexible, and probably more effectiive, than this law.
BTW, how do you expect them to enforce this law? They'll probably just end up asking the person to stop using their phone, and nothing will be done about it... no different than if it were just their policy.
How do you do that? Private companies have no real power to fine people and collect those fines. Moreover, how would they even fine the correct person? What are you going to do, demand to see the offender's ID? What if he refuses? (No, you can't go by seating assignment, because the offender can just claim he changed seats and someone else was the offender.)
This wouldn't even be a Constitutional challenge. A plane is private property
Exactly, so why should congress make the law instead of leaving it up to the airlines?
(Hint: READ the fucking article!!!)
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Moot point, and pointless bill.
It is like banning cellphone usage at the bottom of the ocean because it might interfere with submersibles (which it doesn't anyway). Sure you can do it, but how much reception do you think you are going to get at 5000ft below sea level? (I actually don't really know if someone wants to tell me)
However I do know how much cell reception you are going to get at 30,000 ft over an ocean flying at 600km/h. Which is specifically, none, or not much in slightly better situations. Cell signals are meant to be sent more less horizontally, not really up or down, and generally at speeds much lower, and typically follow population centers and roads, which planes may not.
About the only phone you might be able to use is a satellite phone, which is actually what the airlines use for your in flight calls if available or in flight wifi, which is why you pay so much, as it is expensive and available bandwidth is low.
If they are trying to prevent people from using cell phones the last minute prior to landing in a city, I don't see how you need a specific bill for that anyway.
Also if they are so fscking dangerous, how the fsck do I get to keep my phone and bring it on the plane when the TSA type goons are going to steal my toenail clippers?
You have people who disobey safety instructions and wander about the cabin when the plane is pitching and rolling, even with "Federal Law compels you to comply with all flight attendant instructions...." and you expect people to not talk because a 5'2 flight attendant asked nicely? Never gonna happen.
This is an example of "what's great for me sucks for you". For that shithead on the phone, s/he's breaking up the monotony of the flight and lack of blood flow to the legs with a fun phone call. It just hurts and annoys everyone else. Do you think at that point after being jammed into the middle seat with a seat reclining into his lap the caller is gonna care that the nice flight attendant calmly told them to knock it off?
Won't happen. Even with the Federal Law thing you'll still have people that try. And for someone who takes public transportation with "quiet cars" that depend on civility between people that is often ignored, I've seen a couple near fights on a 45 minute train ride with relatively (to airplanes) large and comfortable seats, fresh air, and the ability to walk around any time. How many fights do you think there will be on a 8 hour overland flight with Cell coverage? My body clock says it's midnight, time to sleep. This caller's clock say's it's 8AM, time for work. Do you think he's gonna back off? Do you think the cranky sleepy guy is gonna back off?
For those that say "let the market decide" this is preventing literal fistfights in the air where you'd probably need to vector 25% of those fight flights off to other airports, totally disrupting the web of flights that make up air travel today.
I see, so it is an unconstitutional law.
I found the notion that this was common sense and courtesy to be amusing. If you have to threaten people with prison, then it is neither common sense nor courtesy.
It''s pretty damn uncourteous to put people in prison.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
> However, the government is still constrained by the constitution
Ha! ROFLMAO at that.
The Airline can tell me whatever they like, and I can tell them whatever I like, and they can go frack themselves.
The government are the ones who threaten you with prison if you talk to someone while you are on an aircraft -- but only if you are not wealthy enough for a private charter.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The courts could establish that the first amendment doesn't protect any speech at all and it wouldn't affect my opinions in the least.
Fine, as long as we're clear that you're expressing an opinion rather than stating facts. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Maybe you should get some opinions of your own.
Oh, I can assure you that our little interchange has afforded me plenty of opportunity to form a few opinions. But I won't go into that, because personal opinions have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'll wager that you were unaware that, until the Supreme Court ruled in the 1925 case Gitlow v. New York that the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' clause extended the imposition of 1st Amendment protections to State governments as well as the Federal government, that State governments were not constrained at all by the 1st Amendment.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Sad how "the land of the free" has so much mindless authority worship.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
You deciding that it is an unconstitutional law (when in fact it is nothing but a bill at this point) is significantly above your pay grade.
The sponsors cited their constitutional authority to regulate this.
When you are appointed to the bench, you can rule otherwise.
But in unless or until there is a challenge in court, once approved by the house and senate and signed by the president it is constitutional.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
The judges are just people with opinions and a bit of power; they have their own opinions as to how to interpret the constitution, but not facts.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Courts should *not* be changing the constitution; amendments should. However, such an amendment exists, and while it was ultimately the courts that interpreted it in that way to make things such as the first amendment apply to the states, it was the constitutional amendment that did it.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
Why is it that some people assume that people who question the government do not know how it's supposed to operate? I'm well aware, and I know it's not operating correctly. Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
Thank you Dave Raggett
What? You do realize that this is about the government trying to make a law that forbids in-flight phone calls, right? It's not the private property owners deciding to do this; it's the government. That's what people are objecting to.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law. No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law.
Which is exactly what I said when I mentioned that they have "a bit of power."
No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
If you'd like, I could just say that you're drawing too many of your opinions from authority figures, but it really doesn't change anything.
And I see no fallacy by that name, though there's probably something similar. If taken literally, it's probably more of a straw man.
Thank you Dave Raggett