Congress Pushes Forward On Banning Already Banned In-Flight Calls

from the aren't-politicians-great? dept

The crusade against the almost non-existent in-flight phone call menace continues. First, we had the FCC insist that it would not lift the ban on in-flight use of mobile phones, in part because of worries from people about having to sit next to someone yapping away. Then, a few months later, the FAA also said that it would not allow mobile phones to be used on airplanes. As we noted at the time, this seemed rather superfluous, given the FCC ruling. But, of course, when there's an issue that's already been decided, who best to step in and decide it all over again but Congress?

Yes, a Congressional representative, Peter DeFazio, has given us the (I kid you not on the name) Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights." We had mentioned this law when it was first proposed, but it's actually now been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

While I can understand the annoyance factor that people fear (and, yes, it's actually been shown that only hearing half of the conversation is more annoying, which is why it's different than just having people talking to each other on the plane), it's still not clear why such a law is needed. Beyond the FCC and FAA bans already in place, if such phone calls are really as annoying as most people predict, then why wouldn't airlines already ban them, rather than piss off customers? Or, more likely, you'd get some self-selection in a way that benefits everyone. Some airlines might allow phone calls, while others wouldn't -- and people can self-select. Or, some airlines may have "talking sections" and "non-talking sections," and, again, the issue is solved completely without needing a law at all. This is yet another example of Congress telling us what it thinks is good for everyone, when people are pretty well-equipped to figure that out on their own.

Filed Under: bans, congress, faa, fcc, inflight, phones, voice

Senator Introduces Unconstitutional Bill To Ban Sale Of Certain Video Games To Minors

from the apparently-wants-to-challenge-the-constitution dept

We were just talking about how New York State was about to become the latest in a long line of states to waste taxpayer money fighting for an unconstitutional law requiring video games to be labeled and also banning the sale of certain video games to children. Nearly a dozen states have tried to introduce similar legislation, and every time they've been rejected by courts as unconstitutional. Every time. There is simply no excuse for politicians to introduce another one of these laws. The courts have been clear that those laws aren't just unconstitutional, but can even be harmful to children.

Now we've got the federal government getting in on the game as well. I was just looking over some of the latest bills introduced in Congress via the always excellent Washington Watch and what do I see, but a newly introduced bill in the Senate that would require "age-based content rating labels" and ban the sale or rental of games with adult content to minors. Of course, video games are already rated via a voluntary rating system (same as movies), and most video game stores already ban the sale of such games to kids. Plus, oh yeah, there's that whole First Amendment issue.

So, what, exactly does Sen. Roger Wicker hope to accomplish in introducing such a bill, other than to potentially waste taxpayer money in a lawsuit that will clearly be lost?

Filed Under: bans, first amendment, roger wicker, senate, video games

Social Networking Site Bans Anyone Over Age 36 To (Sorta) Deal With Sex Offender Law

from the say-what-now? dept

We've pointed out the ridiculousness of various laws (and proposed laws) to require all sex offenders to register their usernames and emails -- and to have social networking sites match up their userlist to that list to ban users -- but this latest story is even more ridiculous. Apparently, the UK has put in place a law that could eventually require the Secretary of State to set up a system where sex offenders will be required to register their email addresses. This isn't the law yet, however, and may never be put in place. Yet, one social network is apparently reacting anyway, and has deleted all profiles of people over the age of 36, claiming that since it doesn't require a valid email address to register for the site, it has no way to compare its registered base with the still non-existent registered offender list. Why age 36? No one seems to have any clue. Basically, the reasoning makes almost no sense at all. The law isn't really in place yet. The 36 year old age cut off has nothing to do with the law -- or with actually blocking sex offenders, many of whom are well below the age of 36. This doesn't even make the point about how ridiculous some of these laws are. It just shows a totally nonsensical reaction to a non-law.

Filed Under: bans, sex offenders, social networks

City Council Tells 'Dumbest Criminal' To Stop Posting So Much Evidence To YouTube

from the give-the-cops-a-challenge,-man dept

We've been mocking various attempts to get laws passed that would make it illegal for criminals to post evidence of their crimes on YouTube. This makes absolutely no sense -- as you're basically telling criminals "stop giving us the evidence we need to convict you." If the criminals are so dumb as to hand over such evidence, shouldn't the police and gov't officials be happy about it? Now, in a rather extreme example of this, the city council for Leeds, in the UK, has banned a man they refer to as one of the city's "dumbest criminals" from posting any more evidence to YouTube. In fact, the City Council even seems to recognize how helpful the guy has been: "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate. In the last three years, we have seen a 32 per cent reduction in crime in Leeds. If more criminals were as obliging, the city would be even safer." So why would you ban him from uploading such evidence?

Filed Under: bans, criminals, evidence, leeds, uk, videos, youtube

Politicians Want To Ban Already Banned Mobile Phone Use While Flying

from the department-of-redundant-redundancies dept

Politicians just love to grandstand in the hopes of getting some publicity for their next election campaign -- and that includes passing laws against things that are already illegal. The latest is that some politicians are looking to pass a law banning the use of mobile phones while flying in an airplane. As you probably know, such things are already banned by rules from both the FAA and the FCC. And, while there's some effort underway to lift such bans, the two government agencies have suggested they have no plans to modify theirs. But, that won't stop Congress from stepping up to tell people it's protecting them from chatty flightmates. It even came up with a cute name for the law: the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act. Honestly, if politicians spent a little less time coming up with catchy acronyms for unnecessary laws, they might actually do something useful.

But, more to the point, even without the FCC/FAA ban, it's not at all clear why this is needed. Yes, there are many, many people who have made it clear that they don't want to sit next to a chatty person on a mobile phone while stuck in a tin can hurtling through the skies. But can't people vote with their wallets on that? If it's something that really upsets people, then that's an opportunity for an airline to declare mobile phones off-limits, or to create "quiet sections" where mobile phones can't be used. There's no reason for the government to get involved at all. Besides, it's still unclear how they're going to ban "voice" calls once they allow internet data to flow on-board. After all, on the internet, voice is just another form of data.

Filed Under: bans, congress, politics, talking while flying

Press Boycotts Indian Cricket Matches Over Restrictions On Digital Media

from the good-for-them dept

Last week, we wrote about how disappointing it was that American newspapers agreed to restrictions placed on them by Major League Baseball concerning how those newspapers could report on games online. You would think that newspapers reared on the idea of freedom of the press and editorial independence would not allow an organization they were covering to dictate the terms of coverage -- but they did. Luckily, it looks like reporters down in India are more willing to stand up for what they feel is right. Reader Bipin writes in to let us know of a very similar situation, where the Indian Premiere League put a number of restrictions on how the press could report online on its cricket competitions in India. Rather than agree to the restrictions, the press threatened to boycott IPL events entirely. Apparently the boycott threat has worked to get the league to back down a bit, though it may still end up with some restrictions. That still seems ridiculous, and hopefully the press will again point out that it needs to remain independent and cannot abide by any restrictions placed on it by the very organization it's covering.

Filed Under: bans, cricket, india, journalism, media restrictions, reporters

Brazil Bans Bully And A Bunch Of Blogs

from the can't-stop-banning dept

Brazil seems to be really into banning things online these days. You may recall the totally pointless ban on YouTube to hide a single video (which a lot more people saw after the ban was put in place). Eventually the courts reversed the ban and even required the model whose video resulted in the ban to pay Google as compensation for the unnecessary ban. Even with that experience, however, it looks like the Brazilian courts are prone to overreacting and broadly banning anything it doesn't like.

First up is the news that a Brazilian court has banned the sale of the video game Bully. This would be the same video game that Jack Thompson went to court to have banned even though he had never played it -- and even though anti-bullying activists praised the game, noting that it really was no different than movies like Rushmore or Napoleon Dynamite. The judge's explanation for the ban is a bit weak: "The aggravating factor is that everything in the game takes place inside a school." I really don't see how that matters. The game is about a kid learning to deal with different cliques and factions in a school. That seems rather realistic. Does the judge think that real life cliques in schools will suddenly disappear if this game is unavailable? Perhaps Stephen King can head to Brazil and convince them why this is wrong.

On top of that, news is coming out that a Brazilian court has also banned access to Wordpress.com, one of the most popular blog hosting sites around. It looks quite similar to the YouTube situation, where the judge really just wanted a single blog banned, but without an easy way to do that, ISPs are blocking the entire site and every blog carried on Wordpress. This is, just as with the other bans, a total overreaction. Not only will it call more attention to the "problem" blog, it will piss off and inconvenience a ton of totally innocent people as well.

Filed Under: bans, blogs, brazil, bully, wordpress
Companies: take two interactive, wordpress

Next Thing To Ban: Walking While Talking On A Mobile Phone

from the no-chatting-for-you dept

Last month we pointed to some recent studies about how people walking while talking on mobile phones tend to do things that are riskier than those not talking on mobile phones and jokingly asked when politicians would start proposing bans on walking-while-talking, to go along with the popular bans on driving while talking. It didn't take long at all, actually. Parker Mason writes in to let us know that an Illinois lawmaker has proposed a ban on talking on a mobile phone while in a crosswalk. Combine that with jaywalking and you could really piss off a person who wasn't actually doing something dangerous. Actually, this isn't the first time such a thing has been proposed. Last year a similar law was proposed in New York, though I don't believe it went anywhere. It's nice that politicians want to protect people, but at some point you really have to ask why people can't take responsibilities for their own actions?

Filed Under: bans, illinois, mobile phones, walking

Another UK ISP Insists It Won't Become A Copyright Cop; Scolds BPI

from the not-here-to-do-your-work dept

Well there go those plans. Over in the UK, the British equivalent of the RIAA, the BPI, was pretty confident that it had the government on its side in forcing ISPs to become copyright cops and to kick off users found to be sharing unauthorized files. However, it looks like the BPI may have gotten a little ahead of itself. First, the BPI leaked to the press that Virgin Media would voluntarily agree only to have the ISP vehemently deny that it would do any such thing. Now, TalkTalk, the third largest ISP in the country isn't just saying it won't be a copyright cop fot the BPI, but its CEO is angrily denouncing the BPI for sending "the most unbelievably rude letter" demanding it do so. As its CEO said, it's as if the BPI is making ISPs pay the price for the record labels own failure to adopt: "They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family." The BPI, for its part, has also responded angrily claiming that TalkTalk "just doesn't get it." It then goes on to talk about "fairness" and "partnerships" apparently missing the irony that the record labels are notorious for not being particularly fair and being absolutely terrible partners.

Filed Under: bans, bpi, copyright, isps, uk
Companies: bpi, talktalk

IBM Banned From Federal Contracts; No One Saying Why

from the that-can't-be-a-good-thing dept

It's not at all clear what's going on yet, but apparently the EPA has banned IBM from getting any contracts for some unnamed (serious) infraction. Apparently when one gov't agency does such a thing, others follow suit, meaning that effectively IBM may be barred from getting any new government contracts for an extended period of time (potentially up to one year). This is rather unusual, and no one seems to be saying why this ban was put in place, but needless to say, it suggests some sort of pretty serious infraction on the part of IBM.

Filed Under: bans, epa, government contracts
Companies: ibm