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.