Cinema Regulation

[Idzequitch]

Therefore you're the only one bitching about it.

I'm proposing a solution.

There is a substantial difference.

The problem is, your solution is overkill.
It's like sentencing someone to capital punishment for stealing a paper clip. Completely disproportionate to the offense.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm proposing a solution.

There is a substantial difference.

To a problem that doesn't exist and most people don't care about.

The problem exists and plenty of people are concerned.

I speak with real life experiences.

[Thermodolia]

The answer to this "problem" is super simple.
If someone is being legitimately disruptive, and ruining your experience, ask the theater staff to remove the disruptive person. That's it. No government involvement, no absurd penalties.

The problem with that under the current laws, is that theater staff have very little power to do so without potentially opening themselves up to liability. For example, the person they remove could sue them for breach of contract (he also paid for the movie ticket and for the length of the entire movie) or for battery (touching him without consent in trying to remove him).

Without changing the law, this isn't a practical thing to rely on.

No contract has been breached because no contract has been signed.

[Thermodolia]

To a problem that doesn't exist and most people don't care about.

The problem exists and plenty of people are concerned.

I speak with real life experiences.

I bet you if you put up a poll. You would see that Not to many people would be too concerned.

[Infected Mushroom]

The problem with that under the current laws, is that theater staff have very little power to do so without potentially opening themselves up to liability. For example, the person they remove could sue them for breach of contract (he also paid for the movie ticket and for the length of the entire movie) or for battery (touching him without consent in trying to remove him).

Without changing the law, this isn't a practical thing to rely on.

No contract has been breached because no contract has been signed.

Contracts happen all the time without a signed document. A signature on a document isn't the contract itself (and neither is the document), the contract is the agreement. A signed document might be proof of such an agreement but it is the agreement that is the contract.

Paying money in exchange for a seat at the theater and for the full viewing experience is a form of contract, its a contract for service.

[Thermodolia]

To a problem that doesn't exist and most people don't care about.

The problem exists and plenty of people are concerned.

I speak with real life experiences.

And so do I. I speak from real life experience in that no one gives a shit!

[Thermodolia]

No contract has been breached because no contract has been signed.

Contracts happen all the time without a signed document. A signature on a document isn't the contract itself (and neither is the document), the contract is the agreement. A signed document might be proof of such an agreement but it is the agreement that is the contract.

Paying money in exchange for a seat at the theater and for the full viewing experience is a form of contract, its a contract for service.

Still most courts, at least in the US, would throw the whole case out if you claimed breach of contract for a movie ticket. They would also side with the movie theaters for throwing out the obnoxious person.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm proposing a solution.

There is a substantial difference.

The problem is, your solution is overkill.
It's like sentencing someone to capital punishment for stealing a paper clip. Completely disproportionate to the offense.

I don't see the criminal provisions being used too often.

There are plenty of laws on the books with imprisonment as the MAX PENALTY that never get there.

For instance, I'm sure you've seen plenty of signs that say smoking here and there could get you jailed for a few months or a fine up X amount. Most of the time, IF those go to court, the imprisonment aspect won't be applied. And in most cases where there are similar provisions and there is a criminal and a regulatory counterpart, its the regulatory counterpart that's almost always used.

The idea is to have big scary rules on the books, but to only have recourse to them as necessary to achieve effective deterrence.

The mere POSSIBILITY of a fine is enough to deter most people from doing the thing. We don't need to fine a lot of people or even imprison anyone for this plan to take effect.

[Infected Mushroom]

Contracts happen all the time without a signed document. A signature on a document isn't the contract itself (and neither is the document), the contract is the agreement. A signed document might be proof of such an agreement but it is the agreement that is the contract.

Paying money in exchange for a seat at the theater and for the full viewing experience is a form of contract, its a contract for service.

Still most courts, at least in the US, would throw the whole case out if you claimed breach of contract for a movie ticket. They would also side with the movie theaters for throwing out the obnoxious person.

They may award nominal damages, but they are obligated to hear it.

[Thermodolia]

Still most courts, at least in the US, would throw the whole case out if you claimed breach of contract for a movie ticket. They would also side with the movie theaters for throwing out the obnoxious person.

They may award nominal damages, but they are obligated to hear it.

Actually they won't award any damages. And they're not obligated to hear case. Disclaimer I am talking about most US courts.

[Idzequitch]

The problem is, your solution is overkill.
It's like sentencing someone to capital punishment for stealing a paper clip. Completely disproportionate to the offense.

I don't see the criminal provisions being used too often.

There are plenty of laws on the books with imprisonment as the MAX PENALTY that never get there.

For instance, I'm sure you've seen plenty of signs that say smoking here and there could get you jailed for a few months or a fine up X amount. Most of the time, IF those go to court, the imprisonment aspect won't be applied. And in most cases where there are similar provisions and there is a criminal and a regulatory counterpart, its the regulatory counterpart that's almost always used.

The idea is to have big scary rules on the books, but to only have recourse to them as necessary to achieve effective deterrence.

The mere POSSIBILITY of a fine is enough to deter most people from doing the thing. We don't need to fine a lot of people or even imprison anyone for this plan to take effect.

The problem is, the government getting involved at all is still overkill. A $50 fine is still overkill. Would it be nice if people would be more respectful of others at the theater? Of course. Is there any reason for the government to get involved in any way? Absolutely not.

[Thermodolia]

The problem is, your solution is overkill.
It's like sentencing someone to capital punishment for stealing a paper clip. Completely disproportionate to the offense.

I don't see the criminal provisions being used too often.

There are plenty of laws on the books with imprisonment as the MAX PENALTY that never get there.

For instance, I'm sure you've seen plenty of signs that say smoking here and there could get you jailed for a few months or a fine up X amount. Most of the time, IF those go to court, the imprisonment aspect won't be applied. And in most cases where there are similar provisions and there is a criminal and a regulatory counterpart, its the regulatory counterpart that's almost always used.

The idea is to have big scary rules on the books, but to only have recourse to them as necessary to achieve effective deterrence.

The mere POSSIBILITY of a fine is enough to deter most people from doing the thing. We don't need to fine a lot of people or even imprison anyone for this plan to take effect.

Because the penalty is going to jail for smoking marijuana, definitely stops everyone from smoking marijuana.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't see the criminal provisions being used too often.

There are plenty of laws on the books with imprisonment as the MAX PENALTY that never get there.

For instance, I'm sure you've seen plenty of signs that say smoking here and there could get you jailed for a few months or a fine up X amount. Most of the time, IF those go to court, the imprisonment aspect won't be applied. And in most cases where there are similar provisions and there is a criminal and a regulatory counterpart, its the regulatory counterpart that's almost always used.

The idea is to have big scary rules on the books, but to only have recourse to them as necessary to achieve effective deterrence.

The mere POSSIBILITY of a fine is enough to deter most people from doing the thing. We don't need to fine a lot of people or even imprison anyone for this plan to take effect.

The problem is, the government getting involved at all is still overkill. A $50 fine is still overkill. Would it be nice if people would be more respectful of others at the theater? Of course. Is there any reason for the government to get involved in any way? Absolutely not.

If you do not plan on bringing screaming children into the theater or to take up loud phone calls in the theater... you should have nothing to worry about.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't see the criminal provisions being used too often.

There are plenty of laws on the books with imprisonment as the MAX PENALTY that never get there.

For instance, I'm sure you've seen plenty of signs that say smoking here and there could get you jailed for a few months or a fine up X amount. Most of the time, IF those go to court, the imprisonment aspect won't be applied. And in most cases where there are similar provisions and there is a criminal and a regulatory counterpart, its the regulatory counterpart that's almost always used.

The idea is to have big scary rules on the books, but to only have recourse to them as necessary to achieve effective deterrence.

The mere POSSIBILITY of a fine is enough to deter most people from doing the thing. We don't need to fine a lot of people or even imprison anyone for this plan to take effect.

Because the penalty is going to jail for smoking marijuana, definitely stops everyone from smoking marijuana.

Its much harder to get away with a crime that HAS to be performed in public. You can't disrupt the theater without being in the public eye.

And this is not a victimless offense.

[Thermodolia]

The problem is, the government getting involved at all is still overkill. A $50 fine is still overkill. Would it be nice if people would be more respectful of others at the theater? Of course. Is there any reason for the government to get involved in any way? Absolutely not.

If you do not plan on bringing screaming children into the theater or to take up loud phone calls in the theater... you should have nothing to worry about.

Most people don't bring screaming children or take out loud cell phone calls in movie theaters. Your problem would be easily solved and currently movie theaters do this by having the theaters tell everyone in the theater to be courteous of others watching the movie and turn off their cell phones.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you do not plan on bringing screaming children into the theater or to take up loud phone calls in the theater... you should have nothing to worry about.

Most people don't bring screaming children or take out loud cell phone calls in movie theaters. Your problem would be easily solved and currently movie theaters do this by having the theaters tell everyone in the theater to be courteous of others watching the movie and turn off their cell phones.

They already do so.

The problem hasn't gone away.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I firmly believe that the movies are a sacred art. They truly are a highest form of art. Without movies, our lives would be crushing, empty, and cold.

With that said, when I pay to watch a movie in a theatre, I'm not just paying for the benefit to be there... I'm paying for the complete experience. To truly appreciate the big screen, you have to fully give yourself over to the movie... remove yourself from all distractions and to try and really feel and connect with what you're seeing and hearing.

Yet out of the seven out of ten times I've gone to the movies in the past few months, I've always been unpleasantly disturbed at some point: bawling children, cell phone business calls, chit-chat next to me, people walking into the theatre late and then talking...

When you walk into a church, a cemetery, or a library... there is a firm expectation of silence, solemnity, and respect. It is a code of honour to respect the sacred values that these institutions represent. The film theatre, is one such institution, yet for some reason it doesn't often command the same deference or the same respect.

People are truly inconsiderate when they text away, talk loudly, or bring screaming children into these hallowed grounds. Those who truly appreciate the movies have paid good money to experience a part of their soul and a vision of true artistry. It is unfair that others should get to carelessly, thoughtlessly, and negligently (or worse, intentionally) disrupt this experience.

There needs to be consequences to deter such behaviour.

I believe it is time for the government and the theatres to work together to protect the rights of movie-goers.

So NSG, what should we do about this problem?

_____

Since there is apparently no common law duty of care towards fellow movie-goers (I couldn't find a Canadian case even in nuisance where a private action succeeded related to modern movie theatres), we should create a statutory duty of care. From this moment on... ALL movie-goers owe each other a statutory duty of care to NOT disrupt the film-going experience. If anyone breaches this, the statute should allow a private right of action with high punitive damage awards.

However, it can be expensive or time-consuming for individual plaintiffs to bring forward these types of cases, so clearly... we can't leave it all to civil liability and private suits.

We need broad enforcement powers.

Movie theatres are after all, mostly privately owned and a very non-intrusive way for the government to deal with this is to encourage and incentivize private actors to enforce this policy. I suggest tax credits, retirement benefits, and other benefits packages to cinemas that take extra action to lay down and enforce internal regulations (within reason) to protect movie-goers from getting interfered with. I expect this will have all the threatres throughout the country implementing changes on their own volition in a race to get these benefits and protect the sacred art.

Finally, there should be state-imposed consequences. In the event that a private cinema has lax enforcement mechanisms and no one is willing to launch a private right of action... there will be a regime of regulatory and criminal penalties. The Criminal Code should be amended to include a new offence: Disturbance of the Sacred Peace (the penalty I suggest, should be up to 100,000 Canadian Dollars and 14 months of imprisonment). However, the elements in a Criminal Code provision can be hard to enforce because they often require proof of intention, which is why there should be a counterpart in the non-criminal regulations imposing regulatory fines (I would suggest, up to several thousand Canadian dollars). With this in place, a concerned citizen doesn't have to burden himself with a lawsuit or rely on the goodwill of the guardians of the cinema to enforce his rights, he can simply exit the cinema and call the relevant authorities.

I believe this will solve the problem. Its a very carefully designed three pronged attempt to solve the problem. To reiterate: 1) a statutory duty of care in the cinemas to be enforced by private lawsuits 2) a benefit package to encourage self-policing in the cinemas 3) Criminal and regulatory penalties against offenders.
____

So this is my suggestion.

However, I understand there are different points of view and different solutions that others could suggest.

What do you think?

Have you ever been interrupted while in a theatre? Do you think this is a serious problem? What do you suggest we do about it?

What should be done about this problem NSG?

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've EVER read online. If someone is making THAT much of a disturbance during the movie, it's up to management to have them removed. Also, if it bothers you THAT much, you could always ask for a refund, or find another theater to go to.

[Infected Mushroom]

I firmly believe that the movies are a sacred art. They truly are a highest form of art. Without movies, our lives would be crushing, empty, and cold.

With that said, when I pay to watch a movie in a theatre, I'm not just paying for the benefit to be there... I'm paying for the complete experience. To truly appreciate the big screen, you have to fully give yourself over to the movie... remove yourself from all distractions and to try and really feel and connect with what you're seeing and hearing.

Yet out of the seven out of ten times I've gone to the movies in the past few months, I've always been unpleasantly disturbed at some point: bawling children, cell phone business calls, chit-chat next to me, people walking into the theatre late and then talking...

When you walk into a church, a cemetery, or a library... there is a firm expectation of silence, solemnity, and respect. It is a code of honour to respect the sacred values that these institutions represent. The film theatre, is one such institution, yet for some reason it doesn't often command the same deference or the same respect.

People are truly inconsiderate when they text away, talk loudly, or bring screaming children into these hallowed grounds. Those who truly appreciate the movies have paid good money to experience a part of their soul and a vision of true artistry. It is unfair that others should get to carelessly, thoughtlessly, and negligently (or worse, intentionally) disrupt this experience.

There needs to be consequences to deter such behaviour.

I believe it is time for the government and the theatres to work together to protect the rights of movie-goers.

So NSG, what should we do about this problem?

_____

Since there is apparently no common law duty of care towards fellow movie-goers (I couldn't find a Canadian case even in nuisance where a private action succeeded related to modern movie theatres), we should create a statutory duty of care. From this moment on... ALL movie-goers owe each other a statutory duty of care to NOT disrupt the film-going experience. If anyone breaches this, the statute should allow a private right of action with high punitive damage awards.

However, it can be expensive or time-consuming for individual plaintiffs to bring forward these types of cases, so clearly... we can't leave it all to civil liability and private suits.

We need broad enforcement powers.

Movie theatres are after all, mostly privately owned and a very non-intrusive way for the government to deal with this is to encourage and incentivize private actors to enforce this policy. I suggest tax credits, retirement benefits, and other benefits packages to cinemas that take extra action to lay down and enforce internal regulations (within reason) to protect movie-goers from getting interfered with. I expect this will have all the threatres throughout the country implementing changes on their own volition in a race to get these benefits and protect the sacred art.

Finally, there should be state-imposed consequences. In the event that a private cinema has lax enforcement mechanisms and no one is willing to launch a private right of action... there will be a regime of regulatory and criminal penalties. The Criminal Code should be amended to include a new offence: Disturbance of the Sacred Peace (the penalty I suggest, should be up to 100,000 Canadian Dollars and 14 months of imprisonment). However, the elements in a Criminal Code provision can be hard to enforce because they often require proof of intention, which is why there should be a counterpart in the non-criminal regulations imposing regulatory fines (I would suggest, up to several thousand Canadian dollars). With this in place, a concerned citizen doesn't have to burden himself with a lawsuit or rely on the goodwill of the guardians of the cinema to enforce his rights, he can simply exit the cinema and call the relevant authorities.

I believe this will solve the problem. Its a very carefully designed three pronged attempt to solve the problem. To reiterate: 1) a statutory duty of care in the cinemas to be enforced by private lawsuits 2) a benefit package to encourage self-policing in the cinemas 3) Criminal and regulatory penalties against offenders.
____

So this is my suggestion.

However, I understand there are different points of view and different solutions that others could suggest.

What do you think?

Have you ever been interrupted while in a theatre? Do you think this is a serious problem? What do you suggest we do about it?

What should be done about this problem NSG?

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've EVER read online.

I take it you don't often go to the movies?

[Scomagia]

Most people don't bring screaming children or take out loud cell phone calls in movie theaters. Your problem would be easily solved and currently movie theaters do this by having the theaters tell everyone in the theater to be courteous of others watching the movie and turn off their cell phones.

They already do so.

The problem hasn't gone away.

Too bad. Get a fucking blog.

[Hurdegaryp]

You are not dreaming. This thread is real. You are in NationStates General now. Now let us intensely discuss how to cleanse cinemas worldwide from the many scourges that plague them

[Thermodolia]

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've EVER read online.

I take it you don't often go to the movies?

Just because someone has a different opinion than you on noises in the movie theater, does not mean they do not go to the movies often. I go to the movies often and I don't see a problem with people making noises. All actuality I've only been to one movie theater where people were extremely noisy and I haven't been to that movie theater in 10+ years.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've EVER read online.

I take it you don't often go to the movies?

I go to the movies dozens of times a year (depending on the weather, what movie is playing, finances, and free time). There have been a few times I've been really bothered in the theater (person talking, texting, etc), and each time, I've talked to the manager, and they have resolved it (once, they asked that person to leave, as that person was recording parts of the movie on their phone).

[Aquesta]

Going to the cinema is a social event for most people that is why there is noise because they are talking to each other as people tend to do during social events. If you want complete silence when watching a film rent it.

[Thermodolia]

You are not dreaming. This thread is real. You are in NationStates General now. Now let us intensely discuss how to cleanse cinemas worldwide from the many scourges that plague them

Death to the noisy!

Anything in italics is sarcasm.

[Thermodolia]

Going to the cinema is a social event for most people that is why there is noise because they are talking to each other as people tend to do during social events. If you want complete silence when watching a film rent it.

What a novel idea!