Autistic child jeered out of movie theater

[The Scientific States]

I suppose it's a lucky thing this didn't happen in Florida in January.

The autistic kid couldn't help it, the guy texting is just an asshole.

Doesn't mean he should've been shot.

[Farnhamia]

I suppose it's a lucky thing this didn't happen in Florida in January.

The autistic kid couldn't help it, the guy texting is just an asshole.

We'll not go into it here, but you're wrong about that. I agree that the kid couldn't help it.

[Geilinor]

Wait a minute...autistics cannot use reasoning?
Where did you learn this?

Around the time they starting babbling and yelling in the middle of movies was the time I figured it out.

So I don't think you've heard of high-functioning autistic people.

[Mavorpen]

Wait a minute...autistics cannot use reasoning?
Where did you learn this?

Around the time they starting babbling and yelling in the middle of movies was the time I figured it out.

People with turrets cannot use reasoning.

Seems legit.

[God Kefka]

Disruption in a cinema is analogous to damaging someone else's property. In both cases a consumer has bought something and should have the economic right of enjoyment of that property.

In the case of the cinema it is the viewing time.

if 100 people came to a market and bought 100 melons and then there arises a situation where a defendant through negligence causes damage to the 100 melons... the costs of the total claim that can be brought by the combined plaintiffs should not be the cost of 1 melon but 100 melons.

This case is analogous.

Each individual consumer bought X number of viewing minutes for himself. The fact that they enjoy them at the same time doesn't take away the fact that there are individual transactions and individual economic goods here bought with individual wallets. Hence it is necessary to multiply the cost of the damage that can be claimed... to at least X (the number of minutes disrupted) multiplied by the number of viewers... we can go from there and estimate the total monetary harm.

That is if each and every single plaintiff chooses to sue, and in an ideal world they would be able to under the principles of corrective justice.

Wat.

Seriously, what is that? Let me ask you a quick question, do you support private business rights?

yeah...

[Cu Math]

You can't multiply 15 minutes by the number of people, that's stupid.

If Bob and Mary watch the same movie and there is 10 minutes of disruption... Bob lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value he paid for through his ticket; Mary lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value she paid for through her ticket.

hence the total damage done is 20 minutes worth of economic damage.

now expand to 100 people...

When X buys a movie ticket he doesn't buy a collective viewing time for the entire cinema, he buys an individual length of time of viewing pleasure equal to the running length of the movie. Hence every single persons' time needs to be assessed separately to get at the true economic cost of the disruption and the value of the claim...

Nope. Nope Nope Nope.
Let me stop you right there, you failed to take into account one thing; that you don't apparently understand econ.
You have zero economic output once you have bought that ticket, you are actually costing money in the form of opportunity cost.
In econ, time you spend staring at the screen is of equal value to the time you spend screaming at the disabled for being disabled.
But okay, lets take a quick look at the equations.
If [child X] costs people 10 minutes of time on his own, then the crowd spends 5 jeering, kicking the child out costs the theater [time spent removing child+labor cost of having ushers handle the problem+externality of negative press+loss of the consumer themselves]
And that cost is transferred to you

[United Marxist Nations]

The autistic kid couldn't help it, the guy texting is just an asshole.

Doesn't mean he should've been shot.

Sir, that was a:

[Farnhamia]

Doesn't mean he should've been shot.

Sir, that was a:

You should remember that this is a text interface and jokes are not always easy to spot. Especially unfunny ones.

[The Scientific States]

Wat.

Seriously, what is that? Let me ask you a quick question, do you support private business rights?

yeah...

Then you obviously should support the right for people to enter private businesses if they please, and if they cause trouble, have their service denied.

In this case, the family was jeered out. If the moviegoers were to address the staff about the issue, something couldve been done.

[Swanderfeld]

Child's disability is irrelevant. He was being disruptive and therefore needed to be controlled or removed, granted there were better ways of achieving this but the primarily fault lies with the mother. Just because your child has a disability does not mean everyone else can be expected to tolerate the disruption caused and ruining of their experience which they paid money for. Buy tickets in special times (I am sure they have those across the pond too), rent a movie or get someone to take care of the child.

[The Scientific States]

Doesn't mean he should've been shot.

Sir, that was a:

After this thread, my sarcasm meter is temporarily broken.

[God Kefka]

I suppose, then, that you don't support the concept of man-hours.

What God Kefka suggesting is like suing other drivers for encountering traffic.

not really...

see because there isn't a duty of care not to create traffic. In the case of a traffic, there isn't negligence. Its simply an uncontrollable event.

Here in this scenario, the mother as the caretaker knew of her son's condition, past history, and tendency to disrupt. Yet she still brought him in. The resulting damage can be attributed to her negligence. It's not the same in traffic...

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

If Bob and Mary watch the same movie and there is 10 minutes of disruption... Bob lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value he paid for through his ticket; Mary lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value she paid for through her ticket.

hence the total damage done is 20 minutes worth of economic damage.

now expand to 100 people...

When X buys a movie ticket he doesn't buy a collective viewing time for the entire cinema, he buys an individual length of time of viewing pleasure equal to the running length of the movie. Hence every single persons' time needs to be assessed separately to get at the true economic cost of the disruption and the value of the claim...

Suing would be pointless in my opinion. I think the most that could have happened was that the manager/theater would have to refund the people, perhaps the theater could sue the woman.

But practically speaking, how much does a movie cost to see these days? i know it's ridiculously high these days, especially 3D movies. 17 bucks maybe?

You know how much it would cost to retain a lawyer and sue for 17 bucks? You'd probably spend more in gas going back and forth between the court house. The time and effort isn't worth it, just to get your 17 bucks. even if you are awarded some minor damages and in best case scenario legal fees, assuming you even win, on a case that would be shaky at best. Personally, i might ask for a refund, but if i was denied i'd just go home and not go to that theater again.

/ not worth the effort.

[United Marxist Nations]

Sir, that was a:

You should remember that this is a text interface and jokes are not always easy to spot. Especially unfunny ones.

I would have thought that implying that texting in a movie theater is worthy of being shot would have been pretty easy to spot.

[Farnhamia]

Around the time they starting babbling and yelling in the middle of movies was the time I figured it out.

People with turrets cannot use reasoning.

Seems legit.

I used to have a turret, a couple of them, actually, on my castles. Or did you mean Tourette? Which kind of actually means the same thing only in French and you what they say about the French, right?

[God Kefka]

Child's disability is irrelevant. He was being disruptive and therefore needed to be controlled or removed, granted there were better ways of achieving this but the primarily fault lies with the mother. Just because your child has a disability does not mean everyone else can be expected to tolerate the disruption caused and ruining of their experience which they paid money for. Buy tickets in special times (I am sure they have those across the pond too), rent a movie or get someone to take care of the child.

that's exactly right.

Since we can't hold the mentally ill person responsible as a matter of law and social convention, it seems only fair to hold the caretaker responsible. Especially as in this case she knew of his condition and past history...

[Farnhamia]

What God Kefka suggesting is like suing other drivers for encountering traffic.

not really...

see because there isn't a duty of care not to create traffic. In the case of a traffic, there isn't negligence. Its simply an uncontrollable event.

Here in this scenario, the mother as the caretaker knew of her son's condition, past history, and tendency to disrupt. Yet she still brought him in. The resulting damage can be attributed to her negligence. It's not the same in traffic...

There's an obligation to drive responsibly, to obey traffic laws. People who do not do these things cause excessive traffic problems. I should have the right to write down license plate numbers and have the authorities give me the owners' names so I can take them to court.

[Nua Corda]

I work at an upscale movie theater. We deal with both, and discourage both.

We don't have an arcade or play area, and don't do very many showings of childrens' movies to discourage kids, as well as charging full price for infants (boy does that piss people off, but serve them right for bringing a fucking baby to a theater). We also have a strict no-tolerance policy towards disruptions. If someone makes a scene, and doesn't quiet down after we ask them to, we have armed security to escort them out. If the family of a kid or an autistic person voluntarily leaves with no hard feelings, we give them passes to come and see another movie some other time, without the problem child. But if they insist that they have a right to piss off all the other customers because their kid is special, and refuse to leave quietly, they're out that ticket.

[Farnhamia]

You should remember that this is a text interface and jokes are not always easy to spot. Especially unfunny ones.

I would have thought that implying that texting in a movie theater is worthy of being shot would have been pretty easy to spot.

Around here? Hard to say.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Wait a minute...autistics cannot use reasoning?
Where did you learn this?

Around the time they starting babbling and yelling in the middle of movies was the time I figured it out.

Are you referencing this film?

And are you aware that autism exists on a spectrum? Describing them in a way that clumps them all together suggests you don't know much about the subject.

How the child was hurt: Was jeered, insulted, and made fun of to the point of him and his family having to leave.

How the moviegoers were heart: Were moderately disrupted for 10-20 minutes.

Who was hurt more?

I wouldn't calling repeated bouts of screaming, shouting and laughter 'moderate disruption'. This was just what was experienced in the beginning of the movie, i have no doubt these bouts would have continued, lessening the experience for the other paying customers. I also have no doubt the Staff would have ejected them if this behavior continued, and i think the other patrons reacted inappropriately and unnecessarily rudely when it could have been better handled by Staff ejecting them.

My problem isn't with autistic/mentally retarded persons being in a theater or other public space, it's with disruption of the experience of other paying customers.

You have "no doubt"? I have plenty of doubt - unless the individual is of a challenging behavior then a great many individuals suffering from a mental condition like stability and continuity. It takes them time to settle into new situations, but once they do they tend to be fine. And their carers tend to understand them, and know what is likely and when.

I think it is quite possible the carer was correct in her assessment and the kid would have been fine once he'd settled.

But the members of the audience didn't even offer that chance, they become equally (or more) disruptive in return. Repeated bouts? Assuming the blog is an accurate retelling he wasn't a non-stop source of noise.

[Mavorpen]

People with turrets cannot use reasoning.

Seems legit.

I used to have a turret, a couple of them, actually, on my castles. Or did you mean Tourette? Which kind of actually means the same thing only in French and you what they say about the French, right?

I'm pretty sure turrets can use reasoning. If they see you, they shoot you. If they don't, they ask "are you still there?"

[God Kefka]

If Bob and Mary watch the same movie and there is 10 minutes of disruption... Bob lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value he paid for through his ticket; Mary lost 10 minutes worth of the economic value she paid for through her ticket.

hence the total damage done is 20 minutes worth of economic damage.

now expand to 100 people...

When X buys a movie ticket he doesn't buy a collective viewing time for the entire cinema, he buys an individual length of time of viewing pleasure equal to the running length of the movie. Hence every single persons' time needs to be assessed separately to get at the true economic cost of the disruption and the value of the claim...

Suing would be pointless in my opinion. I think the most that could have happened was that the manager/theater would have to refund the people, perhaps the theater could sue the woman.

But practically speaking, how much does a movie cost to see these days? i know it's ridiculously high these days, especially 3D movies. 17 bucks maybe?

You know how much it would cost to retain a lawyer and sue for 17 bucks? You'd probably spend more in gas going back and forth between the court house. The time and effort isn't worth it, just to get your 17 bucks. even if you are awarded some minor damages and in best case scenario legal fees, assuming you even win, on a case that would be shaky at best. Personally, i might ask for a refund, but if i was denied i'd just go home and not go to that theater again.

/ not worth the effort.

yeah... unfortunately, there is the reality of legal costs.

But if the government had the resources to fund justified causes of action, I think this is where we could have more corrective justice.

[Geilinor]

I used to have a turret, a couple of them, actually, on my castles. Or did you mean Tourette? Which kind of actually means the same thing only in French and you what they say about the French, right?

I'm pretty sure turrets can use reasoning. If they see you, they shoot you. If they don't, they ask "are you still there?"

[The Scientific States]

I would have thought that implying that texting in a movie theater is worthy of being shot would have been pretty easy to spot.

Around here? Hard to say.

Yeah, no kidding.

I knew he wasn't being serious, but I'm too tired and lazy to respond jokingly. Id rather just respond, and move on to the next post I can nitpick.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

yeah... unfortunately, there is the reality of legal costs.

But if the government had the resources to fund justified causes of action, I think this is where we could have more corrective justice.

Waste of taxpayer money, just kick her out of the theater and refund the customers. I think the worst that should happen is that they are banned for life from the theater in question in repeat circumstances. Suing seems extreme over a movie disruption, in my opinion.

in any case, it would still take time to go back and forth to the court house. More time than you lost because your movie was disrupted.