NATION

PASSWORD

Cinema Regulation

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Remove ads

User avatar
Hirota
Senator
 
Posts: 4795
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:03 am

This gets talked about a lot on a film radio program I listen to - they compiled a list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.pdf
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted, and koi carp.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those triggered by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03. I consider myself a refugee from the increasingly radicalised left.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:49 am

Hirota wrote:This gets talked about a lot on a film radio program I listen to - they compiled a list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.pdf


Yes. I think its largely a matter of enforcement.

One way around it is to provide an incentive for private actors to simply report offenders to the authorities (this would trigger my proposed regulatory fine penalties).

I expect over time, the mere threat of the reports alone will be enough to encourage automatic compliance.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 119537
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:54 am

Holy Mother of sweet divine Jesus and all the saints in Heaven, you cannot possibly be serious
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
You’ve heard these five words before, you may have even said them yourself. But watch your step, these next five words indicate the early onslaught of chemical retardation.
I’m gettin nothin off that

I solemnly swear to devote my life and abilities in defence of the United Nations of Earth,
To defend the Constitution of Man and to further the universal rights of all sentient life,
From the depths of the Pacific to the edge of the galaxy,
For as long as I shall live.

User avatar
Lordieth
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31595
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lordieth » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:58 am

Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.
There was a signature here. It's gone now.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:59 am

Lordieth wrote:Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.


I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Laanvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1064
Founded: Oct 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Laanvia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:00 am

Watch things at home on Netflix for f**k sake...
Protestant Christian and Proud

Pro: Death Penalty, Militarism, Democracy, Civil Rights, Aggressive Foreign Policy, Political Freedom, Free Syrian Army, Khalifa Haftar, Libya, Palestine, Fatah, Kurdistan, Peshmerga, Freedom of Religion, Some aspects of Socialism, Some aspects of communism, UKIP, Social Conservatism, Family Values/Tradition

Good side of Neutral: UK, U.S., ICC, NATO, UN, Conservative Party (U.K.)
Bad Side of Neutral: LGBT, gay marriage, Labour Party (UK), Israel

Anti: Dicatorship, Radical Islam, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Russia, North Korea, Kony, LRA, Al-Nusra, ISIL, Bashar Al-Assad, Hizb'Allah, Iran, Fattah al-Sisi, Omar Al-Bashir, Military Junta, Nuclear Weapons, Green Party, SNP, Hamas

User avatar
Prezelly
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1101
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Prezelly » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:00 am

It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed
All opinions are accepted as long as they are the right one
Political Compass
Economic Right: 2.0
Social Authoritarian: 0.7

ISTP personality type

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:02 am

Prezelly wrote:It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed


The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:02 am

Laanvia wrote:Watch things at home on Netflix for f**k sake...


Why is it one or the other?
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Prezelly
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1101
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Prezelly » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:04 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Prezelly wrote:It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed


The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.

You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too
All opinions are accepted as long as they are the right one
Political Compass
Economic Right: 2.0
Social Authoritarian: 0.7

ISTP personality type

User avatar
Lordieth
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31595
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lordieth » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:04 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Lordieth wrote:Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.


I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions


Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.
Last edited by Lordieth on Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
There was a signature here. It's gone now.

User avatar
Laanvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1064
Founded: Oct 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Laanvia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:05 am

This is a stupid thread. It's one of the most pointless threads I've seen since the one about the fake story of a Man who was Killed whilst brawling with a Gorilla.
Protestant Christian and Proud

Pro: Death Penalty, Militarism, Democracy, Civil Rights, Aggressive Foreign Policy, Political Freedom, Free Syrian Army, Khalifa Haftar, Libya, Palestine, Fatah, Kurdistan, Peshmerga, Freedom of Religion, Some aspects of Socialism, Some aspects of communism, UKIP, Social Conservatism, Family Values/Tradition

Good side of Neutral: UK, U.S., ICC, NATO, UN, Conservative Party (U.K.)
Bad Side of Neutral: LGBT, gay marriage, Labour Party (UK), Israel

Anti: Dicatorship, Radical Islam, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Russia, North Korea, Kony, LRA, Al-Nusra, ISIL, Bashar Al-Assad, Hizb'Allah, Iran, Fattah al-Sisi, Omar Al-Bashir, Military Junta, Nuclear Weapons, Green Party, SNP, Hamas

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:05 am

Prezelly wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.

You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too


So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Prezelly
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1101
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Prezelly » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:08 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Prezelly wrote:You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too


So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?

It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie
All opinions are accepted as long as they are the right one
Political Compass
Economic Right: 2.0
Social Authoritarian: 0.7

ISTP personality type

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:08 am

Lordieth wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions


Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.


Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.
Last edited by Infected Mushroom on Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:13 am

Prezelly wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?

It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie


It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.
Last edited by Infected Mushroom on Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Lordieth
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31595
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lordieth » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:15 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Lordieth wrote:
Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.


Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.


Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.
There was a signature here. It's gone now.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:16 am

Amazing that a classmate saying Internet movie piracy is okay because "Movies aren't real innovations" can inflict such lasting emotional scars on someone.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Prezelly
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1101
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Prezelly » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:16 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Prezelly wrote:It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie


It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.

I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.
All opinions are accepted as long as they are the right one
Political Compass
Economic Right: 2.0
Social Authoritarian: 0.7

ISTP personality type

User avatar
Sdaeriji
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Sdaeriji » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:17 am

Please re-title your thread "My proposal to increase film piracy 6000%"
Farnhamia wrote:What part of the four-letter word "Rules" are you having trouble with?
Farnhamia wrote:four-letter word "Rules"

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:20 am

Lordieth wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.


Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.


I don't see it as the government encroaching (ex putting additional costs on the cinemas), in fact, it would reward certain actions by cinema-owners but it actually doesn't have the power under this regime to fine or imprison cinema owners for not taking the steps.

So this would be different from some variants of environmental legislation. In that area, companies can be fined and in some cases imprisoned for violating environmental laws and regulations. Here, the regulation and penalties are against the consumers (those who misbehave). Only a carrot (no stick) is used with respect to the private actors. They are rewarded for taking certain steps, but not otherwise penalised.

The problem with leaving it to the private actors alone (leaving it to the cinemas) is that there are severe limits within the law (unless it is changed) as to what they can actually do.

For example, if they try to physically remove a movie-goer without calling the authorities, that could lead to a lawsuit in battery or assault. If they lay down rules that are too stringent, they may overstep what is allowed by the licensing regime or step unto Charter rights territory. Unless there is new legislation or a new body of regulatory authority set up to deal with this sort of thing, calling the police may be of little use (they are likely to dismiss the issue and not come).

A much more fail-safe approach is to limit the role of the cinema as indirect enforcers. They would be encouraged to warn viewers about the new laws and encouraged to report offenders while doing non-intrusive things to enforce the regulations, but they themselves would play a secondary role to the government with respect to direct enforcement.

This way, the theatre owners wouldn't expose themselves to potential litigation.
Last edited by Infected Mushroom on Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Imperial New Vegas
Diplomat
 
Posts: 781
Founded: Jan 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperial New Vegas » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:21 am

You have some truly interesting opinions, Infected.
The flag of the pre-war American Commonwealth with various chems and drugs replacing the stars, representing a love of the old world and a love of drugs.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18001
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Infected Mushroom » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:21 am

Prezelly wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.

I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.


and what would you say those are at the moment?
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)
[/b]

User avatar
Prezelly
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1101
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Prezelly » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:22 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Prezelly wrote:I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.


and what would you say those are at the moment?

Removal due to request of others
All opinions are accepted as long as they are the right one
Political Compass
Economic Right: 2.0
Social Authoritarian: 0.7

ISTP personality type

User avatar
Lordieth
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31595
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lordieth » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:24 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Lordieth wrote:
Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.


I don't see it as the government encroaching (ex putting additional costs on the cinemas), in fact, it would reward certain actions by cinema-owners but it actually doesn't have the power under this regime to fine or imprison cinema owners for not taking the steps.

So this would be different from some variants of environmental legislation. In that area, companies can be fined and in some cases imprisoned for violating environmental laws and regulations. Here, the regulation and penalties are against the consumers (those who misbehave). Only a carrot (no stick) is used with respect to the private actors. They are rewarded for taking certain steps, but not otherwise penalised.

The problem with leaving it to the private actors alone (leaving it to the cinemas) is that there are severe limits within the law (unless it is changed) as to what they can actually do.

For example, if they try to physically remove a movie-goer without calling the authorities, that could lead to a lawsuit in battery or assault. If they lay down rules that are too stringent, they may overstep what is allowed by the licensing regime or step unto Charter rights territory.

A much more fail-safe approach is to limit the role of the cinema as indirect enforcers. They would be encouraged to warn viewers about the new laws and encouraged to report offenders while doing non-intrusive things to enforce the regulations, but they themselves would play a secondary role to the government with respect to direct enforcement.

This way, the theatre owners wouldn't expose themselves to potential litigation.


I do understand your argument, and the limitations of what private entities can and cannot enforce, however I think the sad irony is, is that increasing powers that allows cinemas to impose tougher actions on patrons could lead to an increase in disturbances, or at the very least a reluctance for cinema goers to attend in fear of an over-zealous cinema imposing fines on people for an accidental cough or sneeze.

I'm all for quieter cinemas, but I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with it.
There was a signature here. It's gone now.

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Foxgard, Hurdergaryp, Kalaron, Lost Memories, Nioya, Pelecanus, Samudera Darussalam, The Endless Spirit, Trotskya, Valentine Z, Vassenor

Remove ads