bad manners illegal?

Mark Twain once said: “There’s nothing quite so annoying as other people’s bad habits.”


Move over, Miss Manners, politicians want to start correcting people’s rude behavior – at least when it comes to talking on a cell phone.

In New York, the City Council is considering the nation’s first law banning cell phone calls during indoor performances such as movies, concerts and Broadway plays. Call it cell phone etiquette for the chattering class.

The measure, expected to be approved in December, would impose a $50 fine on anyone who uses a cell phone – or fails to turn off the ringer.

And this law may be coming soon to a theater near you. Last year, after New York became the first state to ban using a cell phone while driving, 31 other state legislatures considered similar regulations. It may be only a matter of time before a wave of new cell phone regulations starts cascading across the country.

Obviously, cell phones can be annoying. But the real question raised by the New York proposal is: Should everything that’s annoying also be illegal?


http://www.lp.org/press/op-eds.php?f...view&record=31

I can see cell phones while driving merely because for some people that's as bad as being drunk. You're also not allowed to wear headphones while driving in most states, too. Merely being rude and not turning off the ringer is equal to a screaming baby in every one of the above mentioned scenarios. I don't see any new mothers out there getting citations.

While the question the author asks himself is a perfectly legit question, I don't think he's reasonable in some of his arguements...

Quote:

---

And this law may be coming soon to a theater near you. Last year, after New York became the first state to ban using a cell phone while driving, 31 other state legislatures considered similar regulations. It may be only a matter of time before a wave of new cell phone regulations starts cascading across the country.

---

While it may be true that "civilized people can deal with minor annoyances without government intervention", I find it disturbing that the example of the state of New York banning the use of a cell phone while driving is used in the same article - whether it's been used as a comparison to 'dramatize' the possible threat of a wave of cell phone regulations, or just as some example...

I'm pretty sure that the banning of using a cell phone while driving had nothing to do with other drivers being annoyed with it, but with the dangers this behaviour poses. Same goes for using a cell phone in a hospital and what all.

Quote:

---

Obviously, cell phones can be annoying. But the real question raised by the New York proposal is: Should everything that’s annoying also be illegal?
...
The problem is that once politicians start making lists of “other people’s bad habits,” that list might soon be as long – and as ludicrous – as the tax code.

---

The real question indeed, and a legit one.

This is imo a matter of freedom. One's freedom ends where another one's freedom begins. In reality: there's no 'reasonable' solution to problems like this: I have the 'freedom' to enjoy the movie. The one sitting next to me in the theatre also does. In perfect conditions our 'freedoms' won't collide. When the person next to me uses his cellphone, he's 'violating' my freedom. When I ask him to stop it, I am 'violating' his freedom. When the person next to me is making obnoxious noises, he's 'violating' my freedom. When I ask him to stop, I am 'violating' his freedom...

The author may be correct when he says that we don't need a patronizing government to protect those 'personal' freedoms.
This does not apply though when it comes to our health for example: smoking is prohibited in most theatres. The government's reasoning for this is that smoking is unhealthy, and one should not be 'victim' to unhealthy conditions against ones will. The theatres themself obviously also benefit from this measure.

Quote:

---

For example, if cell phone users are to be fined at theaters, should obnoxious people talking to the person in the seat next to them be ticketed as well? What about those who butt in line to buy tickets; take forever to order at the popcorn counter; or teen-agers who smooch in the back row of the theater?

---

This is the part I don't like: it's easy to knock down a law by making fun of it, by exagerating. It's known as the 'If we tolerate this, then what will be next?'-reasoning.

Quote:

---

Another consequence: Diverting officers to “phone patrol” means less manpower to fight real crimes. Shouldn’t protecting people from murder, rape, and robbery get a higher priority than issuing cell phone citations during Harry Potter

---

Of course protecting people from murder, rape, and robbery should get a higher priority than "issuing cell phone citations during Harry Potter", but that's not an arguement, simply because that won't happen: officers won't be diverted to "phone patrol" at the cost of less officers protecting people from murder or rape. If you follow that reasoning, you're setting foot on dangerous ground: next thing you know is citizens going to court to sue the local police corps (for 'divertion') because a murder happened on 21th street while some officer was keeping an eye on the crowd in a movie theatre.

Quote:

---

When it comes to making people behave, social disapproval works much more effectively than writing laws. Isn’t that why Miss Manners is such a popular columnist? “Gentle reader: You are correct to be annoyed by those dreadful people who use cell phones at the theater. Here is a delightful way to embarrass such moviegoing miscreants into behaving themselves ...”

---

Don't know about Miss Manners, but some people (if not most) don't give a **** about social disapproval.
And that's where it comes down to the difference between a 'right' and a 'freedom'. If they feel they have the 'right' to use a cellphone in a theatre, they will use that 'right'.
The problem is that they DO NOT have that right. A right is constitutional/legal. The 'every-day' variant of a legal right is "a" freedom. People have the right to personal freedom, but with that right comes a duty (as with all rights): the duty to take your 'neighbour's' right to personal freedom into consideration while practising your own rights...

Quote:

---

Civilized people can deal with minor annoyances without government intervention.

---

Civilized people: yes. Too bad not all people are civilized.

Quote:

---

Don't know about Miss Manners, but some people (if not most) don't give a **** about social disapproval.

---

And therein lies the heart of the problem....

The fact is people DONT have the right to be disruptive in theaters with phones ringing or anything else for that matter. It’s the manager’s responsibility to enforce the house rules, but their too busy counting the money they've taken in to care about such a mundane thing as our enjoyment. If anything management should be fined or sued for allowing it to happen in their theaters after they've taken the money you paid to enjoy a movie. We don't need more laws that will be ignored except when they serve an alternative purpose. We need responsible people to be responsible.

Your absolutely right neg. the argument about cell phones only took away from what he was trying to say...it’s a low budget party!

'If we tolerate this, then what will be next?' seems to hold true in this country. the fact that something can be named dosn't nullify it. There once was a time when insurance companies were lobbying to make it a law that helmets must be worn while riding motorcycles. They said the injuries caused by not wearing them was making insurance rates go up. Those opposed to the law said if you allow this, next helmets would be required to ride bicycles. The supporters or the law shrugged this of calling it ridicules.

Today if i get on a bicycle without a helmet I’ll get a summons and my insurance rates are at an all time high. That’s the way it works here. When you see a proposal for anything, you have to project it to its extreme. Then you'll have a pretty good idea what IS going to happen with it.

The arguments against EZ-Pass have all come about. The opposition argued that the government had no right to record where we go. It was shrugged of saying "it’s only meant to speed up traffic". Today it’s a part of the secret services databases.

If this is the beginning of a trend in government, it’s something that should be nipped in the bud now.

When are they going to make it illegal to be stupid? i think that would help alot, it would be nice to see the AOL staff (and owner) behind bars.... lol think of the possibilities, hat annoying voice instead of saying "youv got mail" it would say "youv got cell mates".

and then theres the damned morons that are on the road with no concept of a turn signal:)

Well negative we just had one hell of an argument this morning about guys not having the decency to go outside and have a smoke.They think it is their right to smoke anywhere they want even if legislation is in place.You know what we (non smokers)+-70%told them?They are spoiled and our management is too soft to do something about it.Why?Because some of them are part of management.To me personally it is about respect for other people's rights as well.They do not have any.They got away with murder all these years and now can't face reality.The bad news for them is that goverment is now inspecting all businesses for irregularities.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
The fact is people DONT have the right to be disruptive in theaters with phones ringing or anything else for that matter. It’s the manager’s responsibility to enforce the house rules...

---

I agree wholeheartedly. The first option the moviegoers have is to tell management. Management SHOULD, if they have any respect for their customers, take care of the situation. If they do not, you make sure that they know they will never have you as a customer again because of the lack of customer service.

Than you walk back in the theater and do what management was unwilling to do. You ask them politely to stop... if they choose to make a scene out of it, that's their fault (not yours). I've been in situation where 4 to four of us (strangers) have actually thrown people out because management was unwilling to do so. (Ans we received a hearty round of applause as we came back into the theater.)

Bottom line is that management should take care of it. If management is unwilling to do so, the people should take care of it. Government should NOT be involved in "manners" issues. I think the gov DOES have the right to get involved with the cell phones while driving, primarily because that poses a risk to other drivers on the road (some of them are, indeed, as bad as being drunk).