Skip to main content

Apparently Lacking Real Crime, NYC Decides to Make Conversation Illegal . . .

. . . at least in theaters or other public events.

According to Liberty for All,

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.


Can you picture it?

Imagine every movie theater equipped with phone fighters who dash down the aisle every time a ringer goes off - flashlight in hand - then demand a drivers license from the offender and issue a ticket.

With an army of cell phone cops disturbing the peace, patrons would long for the days when a cell phone ringer was their greatest annoyance.

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?


This is where we're headed in this country.
Labels:

Comments

Waldo Lydecker's Journal said…
I'd go for this scheme any day. The alternative is a form of citizens' arrest where I can throttle the bastards with my bare hands.
March 29, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Anonymous said…
Or with your own digital camera. If someone wants to be big brother, we can be millions of little brothers.

So if someone rings the phone and it annoys you, or is yacking and annoying you, why not just stare at them until they stop it, or record a video of it on your phone and post it on You Tube.
March 29, 2008 at 9:23 AM
a most peculiar nature said…
This is nuts. It is simply trying to regulate rudeness, which is kind of like regulating humanity.

I try the "stare down" technique on the train when I'm trying to read, but apparently I don't have a very intimidating look. I think Waldo's solution is the best.

We don't go to the movie theatre for these very reasons. We just wait till it comes out on DVD.

I'm also waiting for a fine on unattractive people. The are so annoying.
March 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more