By a lopsided vote of 40-9, the New York City Council has made the use of a cell phone in such public performance venues as Broadway theatres and art galleries illegal, with theatregoers, moviegoers, and the like subject to $50 fines for infractions. The vote was held Wed., Dec. 17, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose administration has called the bill "unenforceable," is expected to issue a veto. The Council, however, has more than enough votes to override.
Introduced last summer by Harlem Councilman Philip Reed, the legislation makes it a punishable offense to use a cell phone "any place?where members of the public assemble to witness cultural, recreational, or educational activities," including live theatres, libraries, museums, galleries, movie theatres, and concert halls. (Cell phones may still be used at sporting events and in emergencies.)
"This is landmark legislation that will set precedents throughout the nation," said Lupe Todd, a City Council press officer. "Banning the use of cell phones isn't a question of a nominal fine--it's a question of telling the public that it's wrong to use a cell phone in places of public performance, and it gives power to venue owners and operators to take measures to alleviate the problem. After somebody's paid $10 a ticket to see a movie, nobody wants to hear the murmurs of someone on their cell phone detailing the plot--this legislation reinforces the idea that you either tune into the show or you tune into your cell phone; that if you can't shut up, you'd better get out--to the lobby, or outside."
Referring to an expected mayoral veto, Todd quickly accused the Bloomberg administration of a double standard. "Why should the Mayor object to this law by saying it's unenforceable? You could make the same argument about the smoking bill he wanted the Council to pass, which it did. You can't enforce that, either. The reality is, this administration lauds all the 'quality of life' achievements--they say smoking is a quality of life concern, that it's a health concern--well, guess what? The cell ban is about health--it's a mental health concern--and it's unfortunate that the Mayor will veto legislation that over 40 members of the Council believe is like the smoking bill. It's hypocritical. Also, littering is hard to enforce, horn honking is hard to enforce, and bicycles on sidewalks is hard to enforce, yet there are laws that cover that. [Bloomberg's] criticism of this bill just isn't valid."
In response, mayoral spokesman Jordan Barowitz said it's "important to note that what Lupe Todd says isn't quite accurate. The Department of Sanitation has enforcement officers; the police enforce traffic laws. The last time I checked, however, I've never seen a cop inside a movie theatre. The problem is, in movie theatres and theatrical performances, there are no enforcement agents, nor should there be. So, how will the law be enforced? Is someone going to go outside and flag down a police officer to give someone a citation? We think there's nothing wrong with the concept of this bill--people shouldn't talk on cell phones in theatres--but this is not something the City of New York is capable of enforcing."
Whither Enforcement or Enforcement, Withered?
The enforcement question, in fact, had dogged the bill from the moment Councilman Reed introduced it four months ago. Still, that hardly prevented a coalition of supporters from being assembled. A Sept. 24 hearing on the bill, for example, was attended by a melange of entertainment industry leaders, including Carol Waaser, eastern regional director for Actors' Equity; Barbara Janowitz, of the League of American Theatres and Producers; Robert Sunshine, of the National Association of Theatre Owners, which represents cinema operators; and George Elmer, a well-known Broadway house manager and member of the Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers (ATPAM).
"I, along with other witnesses, spoke in favor of the ban," said Waaser, following her testimony, "but cautioned that enforcement would be difficult and could cause more of a disturbance than the original offense." Waaser declined to address whether a then-proposed $50 fine would serve as a sufficient deterrent. Adding to Waaser's comments, however, Janowitz said, "The ringing of cell phones has ruined too many theatrical performances for too many people, audiences and performers alike. It is time to work together to put an end to it." And Elmer described how an "occasional nuisance" affecting performances "perhaps once or twice a week" has evolved into a problem cropping up "once or twice an act."
Speaking against the legislation then were representatives of The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that acts as "the voice of the wireless industry." They were joined by, among others, Charles Sturcken, special counsel to the city's Department of Environmental Protection, who said the law, while well intentioned, was deeply flawed. He said, "For a violation to be issued, a DEP inspector?must actually witness the violation," an unlikely circumstance in a darkened theatre.
Ultimately, Reed remained undeterred. In an August interview with Back Stage, he shrugged off the enforcement question, suggesting it was less important than codifying the concept that one's cell phone must be off when in places of public assembly. "A lot of people--most people, a majority of people--want to obey the law," he said. "It's like the penal code, the health code--there's no smoking in a restaurant, people don't do it. But right now, turning off a cell phone is a request; it's not a law. If it's helpful to the management of the theatre, that's a good thing--it's empowering to be able to say 'you're violating the law, it's against the law to talk on the phone, turn it off.' And if you have somebody who's going to continue to talk and talk and talk, the management can insist they stop. They can say, 'I'm going to get a police officer.'"
To further appease critics of the legislation, Reed later amended the bill so the ban would "be in effect only in the performance space and only during the performance," not "in the lobby and in concession areas." And, in the final version of the bill--the one the City Council passed--the wording was ameliorated to apply only to devices requiring vocalization. A patron with a handheld communication instrument, such as a Blackberry, is therefore free to type away with impunity during performances.