Cellphone calls on planes? Don't ask the feds

Norman said:
Common courtesy, which seems to be nonexistent these days, would go a long way toward solving the problem. If I'm in the middle of something and my phone rings it can damn well wait till I'm done. I ain't gonna answer while I'm in a restaurant having dinner.
Click to expand...

You're going to miss that free Bahamas cruise, a lower interest rate on your car loan and an great offer on an extended warranty on your car.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The proposed Transportation Department rules would make it a Federal offense to use a cell phone (because it is annoying, not because it is a safety issue) even where an airline would have rules that allowed their use. That would deny freedom of choice of both the owners of the airline and its passengers.

It would be no different than a federal law banning passengers from speaking with any other passenger on a plane unless they got prior written approval. The law would be neutral as to content, but wouldn't pass legal muster either.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand that participating in a conversation with a fellow passenger is different than talking into an electronic device then perhaps there is no point in explaining to you that laws are expressions of social norms. Laws regulating behavior on public transit systems are common and accepted. You may not like it but that's certainly how it works.
 
Jim Logajan said:
If there is no legitimate safety justification for the ban, if must be lifted. I would hope that future bans would be overturned on first amendment grounds.
Click to expand...

I think there is a legitimate safety reason, I think there would be more violence on flights. Passengers would be more annoying, and hence more confrontations.
 
DrMack said:
Am I the only one who remembers the seat back telephones that airlines installed as an enhancement to the service to their customers?
Click to expand...
Yes, and their first words were always "Guess where I'm calling from?" :D I suspect at several dollars a minute, you wouldn't have been annoyed long by anyone using it.

Way back when I was in college, a buddy of mine got a scanner that picked up the cellular band. We thought we'd be in for some free entertainment. WRONG! People's calls were incredibly BORING! "Honey, what's for dinner?" was quite common around 5PM. "Pick up xxxx at the store" blah blah blah. We turned the dang thing off after 30 minutes! :mad: I don't expect things to be better on the airplane.
 
They can always have a "yapping section" for those who simply can't bear to be off the phone for the duration of the flight.

-Rich
 
Captain said:
The problem is people just talk too loud on cellphones. A landline had a feedback loop in it where the speaker plays what the mic picks up...so you hear yourself. A cell phone doesn't do that so people talk much louder than is necessary.

Not sure what the fix is. Either a mechanical one or a social norm one. But people should be able to talk on a plane without annoying others. A government ban on something for no other reason than annoyance seems silly.
Click to expand...
For once I'm in absolute total complete agreement with you.:yes:

Has the temperature in Lucifer's domain dropped precipitously recently?
 
Norman said:
If you must use your phone please step outside. :yes: :D
Click to expand...
I really don't get the ire that cellphone conversations cause nearby but unfamiliar persons. Yes, some people can be loud and obnoxious when carrying on a phone conversation but a significant portion of them are also pretty obnoxious when talking to someone sitting next to them. The real issue IMO is that folks need to learn how to converse on the phone without shouting (and waving their arms in other's faces).

I do understand how rude it is to drop into a cell call when you're with friends and you just ignore them as if they were no longer important. But I really don't see any difference between experiencing a stranger in the seat next to you talking to his buddy in the next seat over vs his buddy somewhere else on the planet. Certainly the stranger next to you should avoid making a loud disturbance but an airliner is not a library or theater where there is a reasonable expectation of quiet. A little tolerance ought to be the norm, people getting offended when someone does something the person dislikes that is truly not harmful is rolling right down the same path that folks take when they complain that those rich guys shouldn't be allowed to fly their toy airplanes over the neighborhood.
 
gismo said:
I really don't get the ire that cellphone conversations cause nearby but unfamiliar persons.
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that it might be the psychological dissonance of hearing only one half of a conversation. In a dialog between two or more people - or a long monologue not directed to you - your mind may be able to efficiently tune out the fact that you are not being addressed. Whereas utterances made at apparently random times requires the mind to be periodically distracted from whatever it was doing into determining "was that utterance meant for me?" If the person(s) are not speaking a language you understand, whether you hear only one side of the conversation or not, I suspect (based on my own experience only) that they aren't that distracting.

It'd be no different, I suspect, than having to sit near someone who mutters or talks to themselves at seemingly random times. No cell phone needed to get irritated.

But all this angst seems overdone since technical solutions already exist - headsets can be brought along (or are available from the crew on some flights) that can be used to muffle any and all such audio irritants, whether cell phone caused or otherwise.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I would hazard a guess that it might be the psychological dissonance of hearing only one half of a conversation. In a dialog between two or more people - or a long monologue not directed to you - your mind may be able to efficiently tune out the fact that you are not being addressed. Whereas utterances made at apparently random times requires the mind to be periodically distracted from whatever it was doing into determining "was that utterance meant for me?" If the person(s) are not speaking a language you understand, whether you hear only one side of the conversation or not, I suspect (based on my own experience only) that they aren't that distracting.

It'd be no different, I suspect, than having to sit near someone who mutters or talks to themselves at seemingly random times. No cell phone needed to get irritated.

But all this angst seems overdone since technical solutions already exist - headsets can be brought along (or are available from the crew on some flights) that can be used to muffle any and all such audio irritants, whether cell phone caused or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that it's just annoying, especially if you're trying to sleep, read, think, or just relax. The fact that it's one-sided is irrelevant. Being forced to listen to both sides of someone else's inane conversation is just as annoying as being forced to listen to one side.

The earplug / headset solution works, of course. I just it appalling how deeply addicted some people have become to their gadgets, and to being constantly connected to the rest of the world.

I suppose it's a generational thing.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I just it appalling how deeply addicted some people have become to their gadgets, and to being constantly connected to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Fortunately posters to PoA like us with thousands of posts to their name are free of such annoying addictions.

I suppose it's a generational thing.
Click to expand...

I suppose so - like displaying non-natural hair color.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Fortunately posters to PoA like us with thousands of posts to their name are free of such annoying addictions.
Click to expand...

Touche!

Jim Logajan said:
I suppose so - like displaying non-natural hair color.
Click to expand...

It was a dare / bet from my granddaughter. She owes me three lawn mowings if I keep the avatar up for three days.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
It was a dare / bet from my granddaughter. She owes me three lawn mowings if I keep the avatar up for three days.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you have plenty of acerage and a manual push mower.

Blue isn't bad - at least it wasn't a green or red hue.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Hopefully you have plenty of acerage and a manual push mower.

Blue isn't bad - at least it wasn't a green or red hue.
Click to expand...

I do have (and use) a manual push mower. It's good exercise and does a better job cutting the grass, in my opinion.

I never measured the lawn itself, but I'd guesstimate it at about half an acre, give or take. It keeps shrinking as I replace the parts that are hard to mow with other sorts of ground cover.

-Rich
 
ClimbnSink said:
Ya know a good sense of mockery would kill these social ills of being rude using a phone or being rude by being fat and having the gall to go out in public.
Click to expand...

Norman said:
Ya forgot smoking Greg. Oh; and alcohol and every other bad habit.
Click to expand...

It's completely politically correct to mock or express disdain against a smoker. Happens all the time.

I always remember when one time at a restaurant there was this party having dinner/drinks. One person gets up to go outside to smoke. This girls starts giving him the usual lessons (you shouldn't smoke, it's really bad for you, and all that).
There was this really obese dude at the table too (really really fat, and he was in his early 20s), stuffing his face with a big plate of fried appetizers. I would be willing to bet the risk to his health from that was bigger than the smoker, but I can't see anyone telling him when he ordered "you shouldn't eat all that fried nasty food, you should watch your weight, it's not good for your health".
 
Restrictions on speech must pass strict scrutiny.

Put simply, the restriction must pass all of these tests:
  • Must be justified by a "compelling governmental interest"
  • Must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest
  • Must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

So, for the supporters of maintaining the ban, in the absence of a compelling safety interest in aircraft interference, what is the "compelling governmental interest"? Not annoying others is not a compelling interest. Free speech exists almost exclusively to protect people's right to annoy other people.
 
JeffDG said:
Restrictions on speech must pass strict scrutiny.

Put simply, the restriction must pass all of these tests:
  • Must be justified by a "compelling governmental interest"
  • Must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest
  • Must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

So, for the supporters of maintaining the ban, in the absence of a compelling safety interest in aircraft interference, what is the "compelling governmental interest"? Not annoying others is not a compelling interest. Free speech exists almost exclusively to protect people's right to annoy other people.
Click to expand...

They're not proposing to stop airline passengers from speaking. They're proposing to stop them from using certain electronic devices.
 
Palmpilot said:
They're not proposing to stop airline passengers from speaking. They're proposing to stop them from using certain electronic devices.
Click to expand...

Any restrictions on speech, whether they be face-to-face or telephonically, must meet those tests to be legal.
 
Johann said:
It's completely politically correct to mock or express disdain against a smoker. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

I know of one guy who won't do that any more. He got decked for it and the cops sided with the decker.
 
JeffDG said:
Free speech exists almost exclusively to protect people's right to annoy other people.
Click to expand...

First of all this isn't a free speech matter. It is a matter of orderly behavior on common carrier transportation.

Second of all annoying people is not a protected behavior. In fact it is almost totally proscribed. Think about it.
 
Clark1961 said:
First of all this isn't a free speech matter. It is a matter of orderly behavior on common carrier transportation.

Second of all annoying people is not a protected behavior. In fact it is almost totally proscribed. Think about it.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is a free speech issue.

You're proposing to prohibit speaking in a particular venue, by way of federal government regulation. That puts it squarely within the domain of the 1st Amendment.

Annoying speech is the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment (well, the free speech clause anyway). Non-annoying speech doesn't need protection, it is only that speech that bothers others that brings the government into the picture to try and prevent it.

Still waiting for a "compelling government interest" to be cited.
 
JeffDG said:
It most certainly is a free speech issue.

You're proposing to prohibit speaking in a particular venue, by way of federal government regulation. That puts it squarely within the domain of the 1st Amendment.

Annoying speech is the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment (well, the free speech clause anyway). Non-annoying speech doesn't need protection, it is only that speech that bothers others that brings the government into the picture to try and prevent it.

Still waiting for a "compelling government interest" to be cited.
Click to expand...
If what you state is true we could not have noise ordinances but clearly we do.

Constitutional-Law---Jacqueline-R.-Kanovitz---Google-Books.png


http://books.google.com/books?id=Tp...v=onepage&q=noise ordinance bullhorns&f=false
 
JeffDG said:
It most certainly is a free speech issue.

You're proposing to prohibit speaking in a particular venue, by way of federal government regulation. That puts it squarely within the domain of the 1st Amendment.

Annoying speech is the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment (well, the free speech clause anyway). Non-annoying speech doesn't need protection, it is only that speech that bothers others that brings the government into the picture to try and prevent it.

Still waiting for a "compelling government interest" to be cited.
Click to expand...

You will just have to keep waiting because you obviously don't understand the issue. It is not a free speech issue no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

As for your claim of annoyance being protected behavior, it's just as wrong as your position that limiting cell phone calls on public transportation is a free speech issue.

Protected speech is for the expression of ideas. It is impossible to demonstrate that the expression of an idea which is delayed by a persons choice to engage public transport is somehow damaged by that delay. The person has a choice on whether or not to be on that transport and therefore they accept the limitations imposed on that transport. See DHS for further clarification on the consequences of choosing public transport.
 
I'm going to chat loudly on my phone the next time I go to a movie just to see how long that lasts before my happy ass is escorted to the door.

I'll record it for you all and post it here.

A free speech issue?

oooooooookay...
 
JeffDG said:
Any restrictions on speech, whether they be face-to-face or telephonically, must meet those tests to be legal.
Click to expand...

So if I'm prohibited from using certain radio transmitters without a license, that violates the First Amendment?
 
timwinters said:
I'm going to chat loudly on my phone the next time I go to a movie just to see how long that lasts before my happy ass is escorted to the door.

I'll record it for you all and post it here.

A free speech issue?

oooooooookay...
Click to expand...

The first amendment does not apply unless government regulation is involved.

Theater wants to kick your ass out, fine.

Feds pass a regulation on it, nope.
 
JeffDG said:
The first amendment does not apply unless government regulation is involved.

Theater wants to kick your ass out, fine.

Feds pass a regulation on it, nope.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
 
DavidWhite said:
People are already annoying enough on airplanes. We don't need to add phone calls to the mix.
Click to expand...

True, but is that reason enough to ban cell phones on planes by regulation? Because it's annoying? If I could ban everything I found annoying, my world would exist of me, my dog, and occasionally, my wife.

I say lift the ban, and wait the 42 seconds it takes for the airlines to ban cell phone calls on planes in flight.
 
Clark1961 said:
First of all this isn't a free speech matter. It is a matter of orderly behavior on common carrier transportation.
Click to expand...

The location in question is inside a privately owned vehicle containing private individuals who have contracted with each other for mutual benefit. The "common carrier transportation" categorization exists to define who is subject to regulations that insure reasonable safety standards. Nothing you point out removes a cell phone ban from first amendment scrutiny.

Second of all annoying people is not a protected behavior.
Click to expand...
The use of a cell phone is not an annoying behavior per se, and a blanket prohibition on an entire medium of expression violates the First Amendment. Check out the section of the book that Everskyward linked to, and scroll back to page 72 and read that. Shucks, scroll back even farther and read as much as Google Books shares of that book.

JeffDG said:
It most certainly is a free speech issue.

You're proposing to prohibit speaking in a particular venue, by way of federal government regulation. That puts it squarely within the domain of the 1st Amendment.

Annoying speech is the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment (well, the free speech clause anyway). Non-annoying speech doesn't need protection, it is only that speech that bothers others that brings the government into the picture to try and prevent it.

Still waiting for a "compelling government interest" to be cited.
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
If what you state is true we could not have noise ordinances but clearly we do.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tp...v=onepage&q=noise ordinance bullhorns&f=false
Click to expand...

Yes, there are noise regulations - but they can't ban all noise, merely limit its magnitude. A ban on cell phone use isn't a regulation on noise per se. On the other hand, if there were a proposal to regulate passenger-created noise above a certain magnitude, it might fit within one of the exceptions to first amendment limits that has allowed noise regulation. Scroll back to page 72 in the book you linked to and read what that book says about blanket prohibitions on an entire medium of expression.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Scroll back to page 72 in the book you linked to and read what that book says about blanket prohibitions on an entire medium of expression.
Click to expand...
I did, and the second part of the paragraph on blanket prohibitions says, "Laws that forbid the use of an entire medium of communication violate the First Amendment unless adequate substitutes exist for reaching the desired audience as conveniently and cheaply".

Texting would satisfy that requirement.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The location in question is inside a privately owned vehicle containing private individuals who have contracted with each other for mutual benefit. The "common carrier transportation" categorization exists to define who is subject to regulations that insure reasonable safety standards. Nothing you point out removes a cell phone ban from first amendment scrutiny.

The use of a cell phone is not an annoying behavior per se, and a blanket prohibition on an entire medium of expression violates the First Amendment. Check out the section of the book that Everskyward linked to, and scroll back to page 72 and read that. Shucks, scroll back even farther and read as much as Google Books shares of that book.
Click to expand...

When will you get it through your head that a cell phone call is not protected speech? You do not have an inalienable right to make a phone call just because you think you should be able to do so. This is not a first amendment issue. Tell ya what, go into any courtroom while court is in session and fire up the ole cell phone. Let us know how that works out for you.

As for the "annoying behavior" comment, do try to keep up. Jeff claimed that annoying behavior was protected which is an absurd claim also.
 
Clark1961 said:
As for the "annoying behavior" comment, do try to keep up. Jeff claimed that annoying behavior was protected which is an absurd claim also.
Click to expand...

Really? Why on earth would you want to protect non-annoying speech?

So, if you can ban things just because they're annoying, why did Westboro Baptist Church win their case to picket soldier's funerals? That's certainly annoying behaviour...

The purpose of the free speech clause to to prohibit restrictions on annoying speech. Non-annoying speech doesn't need protection.
 
Clark1961 said:
When will you get it through your head that a cell phone call is not protected speech?
Click to expand...

I get that you keep making the same conceptual mistake - that a cell phone ban has nothing to do with free speech because the speech isn't directly proscribed. The tests that the courts apply in determining whether a law violates the First Amendment aren't as shallowly literal as you mistakenly think.
"Writing for the majority, Judge Roger Gregory, joined by Judge Allyson Duncan, said it is "crystal clear that the First Amendment protects peaceful nondisruptive speech in an airport, and that such speech cannot be suppressed solely because the government disagrees with it.""​
 
Jim Logajan said:
I get that you keep making the same conceptual mistake - that a cell phone ban has nothing to do with free speech because the speech isn't directly proscribed. The tests that the courts apply in determining whether a law violates the First Amendment aren't as shallowly literal as you mistakenly think.
"Writing for the majority, Judge Roger Gregory, joined by Judge Allyson Duncan, said it is "crystal clear that the First Amendment protects peaceful nondisruptive speech in an airport, and that such speech cannot be suppressed solely because the government disagrees with it.""​
Click to expand...

Note the use of the word "nondisruptive." That leaves a lot of room open to interpretation.

By the way, would you mind providing some context by citing which case that's from?
 
Palmpilot said:
Note the use of the word "nondisruptive." That leaves a lot of room open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Do you see any qualifiers in the First and Fourteenth Amendments that allows laws against "disruptive" speech? I see none - the concept is a post hoc interpretation of those amendments by the courts. They have invented exclusions that aren't there with (one hopes) great reluctance to balance other rights.

By the way, would you mind providing some context by citing which case that's from?
Click to expand...
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...ers-claim-of-first-amendment-retaliation.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top