Personaly, I find nothing wrong with this proposition. There are circumstances when mobiles/cell phones should be switched off, either for security/technical reasons, as on petrol station forecourts or in hospitals, or through courtesy, as in cinemas or theatres.

I cite the most recent example where somebody risked the crew and passengers of an aeroplane because he refused to stop playing a game on his mobile.

Indeed, in courts, a judge can order that the offending mobile either be confiscated for a short period of time or a monetary sum paid to charity. The fact that some imbeciles still fail to show respect and/or common sense in the relevant circumstances obviously shows that, at least in New York, harsher regulation is needed

silly idea i'd never live with mnie turned off even for a few hours.

By *public performances* I assume they mean things like cinema, theatre, ballet etc

I'm in agreement with Whistler, I agree that phones should be turned of as common courtesy at something like that. I mean who wants to pay to go see something and be disturbed by someone elses phonecall.

I've heard the joys of people testing several ringtones in pubs and things - but breaking the silence in a public theatre can be annoying (the same at conventions too when there's signs on doors reminding people to turn phones off)

I guess a fine for a first time rulebreak is a bit harsh, but I suppose its the only way of doing it as to keep tabs on warnings and stuff would only mean creating a job for someone somewhere to keep tabs on who's phone rang where when it shouldn't.

What would be more interesting is the size of the fine - it has to bear less relation to safety laws of driving whilst using a phone (its not exactly dangerous to use one in a theatre). If it compares to the same then that would be ridiculous - if it was a fine for charity of the theatres choice then that would be a better idea

---

by Demona
There has been talk of imposing fines on mobile phone use at public performances in New York.

Personally, I found this an alarming proposition. Laws should not be made to combat annoyances.

Any thoughts?

---

I agree completely. The example Whistler gives, of mobiles being banned on aeroplanes, is essential because they could interfere with the smooth running of the place, and endanger passengers lives. No one's being put at risk by a mobile going off at a public performance, so the law has no business there. If the owners of the venue want to prohibit it, fine, and they have the right to have the person kicked out if they don't turn the phone off. But that's diferent from legislating against it directly.

I'm all for this! Its annoying and rude to be interrupted when you are trying to watch something (along the public performance angle). At work we have 2 ads before the movie comes on asking them to turn off their mobiles...but noooo thats too hard for them...if you dont want to turn them off put them on silent! I went mad at a friend of mine who was texting while in the cinema, there is no need! Your in to watch a movie and the light disturbs others.

Example last night while doing screen checks i was sitting in the ushers chair at the front watching the movie when i saw a glow in the back row. Had to go up and tell him to switch off his phone or he was out. When in reality i'd much rather have beat him across the head for making me walk up there...although thats not the point

I side with Demona, laws should not be used to stop annoyances. The Government should spend more time on important laws, instead of trying to build a Utopia that will never exist.

Hmmm. Interesting quandry.

Certainly the use of mobiles in areas set aside for public performance is incredibly annoying and unnecessary, for the most part. And we already have laws in place to stop 'public nuisance'. But then we have lots of silly laws in place and that doesn't mean introducing other silly laws is acceptable.

And what of someone who is on call. A doctor, say. Should they not attend such events, or set to vibrate and leave when they get the buzz? Do festivals count as public performance? Can you imagine trying to meet your mate by the speakers half way down on the left near the noodle stall, without using text?

Ultimately, this is about where the boundaries of government (and therefore society) lie. Can I tell you not to do something because I find it annoying? Can we therefore ban all chewing gum because I'm sick of standing in someone's chewed up goo? Or at least ban it from public places? And can we ban Enrique Inglesias? Period (sorry if americanisms offend anyone - maybe we should ban them too?).

But if not, then do we really want to remove such laws as covered by public nuisance. If your neighbour behaves in an inconsiderate and annoying way (particularly loud decibels at all times of day and night, for example) should you not have recourse to seek legal protection?

Where do we draw the line?

Honest truth is I don't know. I'm going to have to think about this one. I suspect placing a law against such behaviour is a little like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. And certainly leaving it to the establishment to remove customers that make too much noise (whether on their own or with the help of a mobile phone) seems to make sense. But I don't really have a good enough argument to say it shouldn't be a legal matter.

Although, if we are going to involve the courts I much prefer the idea of community service over fines...

In places like cinema, theatre etc then yeah i think its a good idea. Especially when idiots have the volume set to ear bleeding levels.

---

by Jayjay
And what of someone who is on call. A doctor, say. Should they not attend such events, or set to vibrate and leave when they get the buzz?

---

I agree with this, and vibrate isn't going to attract attention like a ringtone though - its less obvious (if he did get up and leave someone would just think he's popping to the loo

But if a *normal* member of public is paying to see something and they have answerphone on their phones, surely they aren't going to miss their mates for a few hours Spike?

I don't think they *need* to bother with a law for it, any place that wants to be a mobile-free zone can buy these anti-mobile tiles. When applyed to an area they shield that area from the mobile phone frequencies, they're also available to shield workplace wireless LAN access to stop the company network spilling out to where it shouldn't.

They can also buy mobile phone frequency jammer boxes, although these are illegal in some places..

(Edited by Stoo 28/09/2002 16:28)

---

by Demona
There has been talk of imposing fines on mobile phone use at public performances in New York.

Personally, I found this an alarming proposition....
Any thoughts?

---

I don't have a problem with the fine at all. I don't want to hear anyone's cell phone ringing in a movie, a restaurant, or a train. And I certainly don't want to be forced to listen to their conversations.

But if you're a New Yorker, a fine for a cell phone isn't the biggest issue when it comes to strict laws. I don't know about now because I haven't been following it, but a couple of years ago they (New York City police) started taking people's cars away if they were caught driving while drunk within New York City. I don't know if the cars eventually got returned, but that was a big deal at the time--especially when people were out partying with their friends, got pulled over by the police for drunk driving, then had to go home and explain why the family no longer had a car. Compared to that, I guess the cell phone fine isn't such a big deal.

---

By Jayjay
If your neighbour behaves in an inconsiderate and annoying way (particularly loud decibels at all times of day and night, for example) should you not have recourse to seek legal protection?

---

There there is at least a case for loss of sleep and therefore an effect on work and health. What does one claim for when a play is interrupted? Loss of oppotunity for cultural enrichment?


Failing to make a law against something is not the same as condoning it. A lot of people here are reacting to what, I agree, is an unecessary annoyance. That is not the point. It does not mean we need a law against it; in fact it is unecessary because the management of the premises in question are within their rights to expel people for disturbing other customers.

I am alarmed that governments are so keen to pass laws on such trivial matters, let alone ones that are unecessary. We are being denied the right to make up our own minds on what is considerate behaviour; on our choice of an establishment where we can chat to our friends while relaxing watching a movie or an establishment where we can concentrate on the film we have paid to see.

Taking away a small part of somebody's ability to annoy others does not stop them being generally inconsiderate [insert word of your choice]s. By taking away their power to annoy you are actually also taking away their responsibility to others - the onus becomes on the legal consequences. Obviously this is not a line of thinking that can be followed its conclusion but unfortunately very few things work at both ends of the scale on which they are placed (so far as we can yet understand, not even physics ).

Anyway, my brain stop working halfway through that paragraph, so I'll give up for now.

I take your point Demona. Yes, the noise pollution I suggested would have demonstrable impact on health, whereas being annoyed in the cinema would not. And I fully concur that just because I don't like something is no reason to outlaw it. Hence my opposition to a ban on hunting. The law should be concerned only with preserving the liberty of the individual, and nothing else.

But, just to play devil's advocate, how about restraining orders on stalkers? Clearly the stalker in no way impinges the liberty of their victim. It can cause annoyance and stress, but this could be argued to be the fault of the victim, as it is their reaction, not the stalkers action, that causes the pain. Is this a case of government over stretching itself, or pre-emptive action? If we are not to outlaw the infringement of my liberty to enjoy the film/play/opera/music/football game, is it also incorrect to protect people from stalkers?

And to those who have been so keen to make the use of a mobile phone during a public performance a criminal offence, will you also add the eating and throwing of popcorn? How about talking at all? Crowd surfing? Moshing? Heckling? Exactly where do you draw the line? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe something you do other people might find really annoying? How would you like to find yourself facing a fine and criminal record for your anti-social behaviour?

I'm hope JayJay was being a little tongue in cheek with that one, seeing as you can't compare stalking as 'a mild annoyance', which someone using a mobile phone clearly is. I agree with Demona and others that this stuff rests with the proprietors, NOT with the law. Where and when you can use a mobile should be a judgment made by whoever owns the property your standing in at the time. If you dont like their policy, you can always go somewhere else. A blanket law just takes away people's liberties, and garners the easier acceptance of harsher laws which take away even more of your liberties.

One other point, those places handling the problem by coating it with with stuff jamming mobile signals aren't such a great idea. What if you're a doctor, or you're on call - now you can't go to the cinema.

A little tongue in cheek, maybe. I did admit to taking the position of Devil's Advocate, after all. However, the point still stands. If the difference between the annoying use of mobile phones (as opposed to situations where it is a safety issue - driving or on planes, say) and stalking is one of degree, then we have to justify where we draw the line. What justification can you offer for banning one and not the other?

(Edited by Jayjay 29/09/2002 11:55)

---

by Funky Monkey
A blanket law just takes away people's liberties, and garners the easier acceptance of harsher laws which take away even more of your liberties.

---

I've been agreeing with the general 'it shouldn't need a law' thing, and i think Graham has expressed that rather well for me. While i want to strangle anyone who gets a call while i am in the cinema (and this includes you, Dan!) passing a law to stop it seems too extreme.

The standpoint I'm coming from here is that any law that isn't absolutely nessesary to protect freedoms or people's personal safety is an unessesary one.

Like others have pointed out, legislating against things because they piss you off is a slippery slope. If you make laws against mobiles, where do you stop? The nutty Christian fundamnetalist who comes to the shopping centre on a Saturday? People who protest publically against going to war with Iraq? Speakers corner?

We dont need laws to prevent it we just need people to stop being idiots.

---

by Jayjay
A little tongue in cheek, maybe. I did admit to taking the position of Devil's Advocate, after all. However, the point still stands. If the difference between the annoying use of mobile phones (as opposed to situations where it is a safety issue - driving or on planes, say) and stalking is one of degree, then we have to justify where we draw the line. What justification can you offer for banning one and not the other?

(Edited by Jayjay 29/09/2002 11:55)

---

Surely the stress caused in a stalking situation is can be a feeling of threat to one's safety and therefore not just one of annoyance?

However, this does not really remove the general issue of degree. Unfortunately, though we can easily point to one end of a scale and say 'this is acceptable' and the other 'this is unacceptable' there will never be an agreeable line between the two. But we do have to set some sort of line, or area in which the line can fall, and that is the justification.