celsius1939

I don't want them involved either, but there is a limit to tolerance of bad behavior. Cell phones should be banned in all closed public places. This includes restaurants.

I am sick and tired of hearing some clown yelling into his phone about something or other in his business or family life. There is absolutely no matter so important that it cannot wait 8 or 9 hours. If something is really important, then don't get on a plane. If you are in a restaurant, then get up and go outside. Actually, the best answer is blocking the signal inside closed public places. That is against federal law, and the law should be changed.

brewdog11

Aren't there some security risks involving pax using cell phones in flight? I suppose I don't see it as mere choice issue. Perhaps if it were a matter of simple personal choice I'd be against the gov't getting involved, but there's more to it than that.

DenverBrian

Gee, I'm sure the terrorists will heed any new legislation and not use their cell phones to activate a bomb. And if they do, of course we can severely and sternly fine their remains.

Spiff

I flew AA my last 2 trips there.

I don't mind connecting. Some people do. That's part of the competition/choice.

None. Zero, nada, zip.

Damn that First Amendment!

Join the conversation. Ask how his date with the hottie from the club went last night. Ask if the CEO knows about Operation Greenbucks. It's amazing how quickly such individuals are willing to relocate.

That's not for anyone else to decide.

That's a terrible idea as it also blocks emergency calls. Many people use cell phones quietly and responsibly. They should have to suffer stupid overregulation because some other people don't use cell phones quietly and responsibly.

Yoshi212

BAH BAH says the sheep. Phones have been used for years on flights (against FAA regulations & via legally operated and installed phones on planes) and it has led to not a single terrorist act.
Same can be said for internet access. There is no threat to the integrity of a flight which is why airlines provide access and make money off of it.
The difference is hearing some keys being clicked and an occassional laugh when the baby penguin being tickled video is played and people laugh vs the DYKWIA/cackling person on the phone disrupting the atmosphere.

celsius1939

The First Amendment guarantees the right to talk. It says nothing about the vehicle or the circumstances.

Spiff

There's no right or power ceded to the government allowing the government to restrict talking to a person vs. into a phone either.

Churnman

None of us like hearing a loud mouth constantly talking the whole flight and we all know that adding cell phone conversations will add to the possibility of Mr. or Ms. Loud Mouth, who's flying alone, yapping on their cell to their friend the whole flight so they can pass the time. No, not everyone would do that, but there are enough that would. People generally speak louder into cell phones than they have to anyhow. I've seen some folks seemingly go through withdrawal symptoms when they couldn't talk on their phone. Again, we're not all like that. A plane makes for cramped quarters and that means special rules apply that normally wouldn't out in public. We are on private property when inside a plane.

PTravel

Neither statement is correct.

The prohibition on restrictions on speech contained in the First Amendment are not absolute, and the government most certainly can limit the time, place and manner of speech. This is black-letter law, affirmed in thousands of opinions by justices at the district court, appellate and Supreme Court level.

Spiff

Is there an example of the government only specifically prohibiting cell phone speech vs. "standard" speech in a public venue?

PTravel

First of all, aircraft aren't "public venues." Second, yes, cellphone use is prohibited at immigration entry points (as frequent flyers, we all know that). Radios (without headphones) are prohibited on NYC subways (unless the law has changed since I lived there). Municipal noise ordinances prohibit speech-related activities beyond a certain sound level.

However, and most importantly, whether there is or there isn't, what difference does it make? First Amendment jurisprudence is well-defined and not, in the least, controversial. There are different forms of restrictions permitted, different levels of judicial scrutiny applied depending on the nature of the restriction (which, in this case, is non-content based discrimination -- a legal term of art), and, as I said, permissible "time, place and manner restrictions" (another legal term of art).

Spiff

I never said they were. Another posted posited "Actually, the best answer is blocking the signal inside closed public places. That is against federal law, and the law should be changed".

Not a public place.

That's not a cell phone and decibels aren't the question I asked, re: cell phone speech specifically forbidden, traditional speech with others ok.

PTravel

And I responded that the distinction you're making is legally irrelevant and explained why.

Spiff

And you still haven't answered the question: Is there an example of the government only specifically prohibiting cell phone speech vs. "standard" speech in a public venue?

PTravel

I already told you I'm unaware of any. What's your point?