If a cellphone conversation is rude because others can only hear one side, what about a face-to-face where one party is speaking too softly for others to hear clearly? Should they, out of politeness, raise their voice so that bystanders can hear the whole conversation?

And what about the guy who talks to himself at the same volume that the people at the next table are using for their conversation? Is he being rude? (For that matter, with today's technology you can't always be sure if someone's on the phone or talking to himself.)

I think not. If your brain is disturbed by a one-sided conversation, it's up to you to retrain your brain. And I say this as someone who doesn't own a cell phone, much less use one in public.

> it's up to you to retrain your brain

Firstly, I get a little pissy when total strangers say things that start off with "It's up to you to..." I don't remember asking anyone for an assignment.

And you're right... This may be the broader social trend. People used to tolerate neighbors who owned slaves... Our brains had been "trained" to put up with it. But before we accept this, we should fight it fiercely.

New Rule: Anything you say in the presence of non-intimate strangers is automatically Out There, freely available for the stranger to record and share in whatever media and contexts they see fit.

Maybe the strangers will mock you, on the spot, in front of the other people in line at the grocery, or maybe they'll call your mistress later to tell her you've been making promises to your wife again, or a maybe they'll call your business competitor to tell him that you've just invested in new supplies for a surprise product introduction.

But that will be their choice: You've already made your choice when you decided to speak in their presence.

I will never forget the day I was in Target and the woman on the next aisle was talking on her cellphone about the molestation of her niece in DETAIL! I gave her several looks and yet she continued right on talking. People have no filter any more.

New Rule: Anything you say in the presence of non-intimate strangers is automatically Out There, freely available for the stranger to record and share in whatever media and contexts they see fit.

New rule? Far as I'm concerned that's always been the case, whether you're talking to a phone, the person next to you, or yourself.

New Rule: Anything you say in the presence of non-intimate strangers is automatically Out There, freely available for the stranger to record and share in whatever media and contexts they see fit.

New rule? Far as I'm concerned that's always been the case, whether you're talking to a phone, the person next to you, or yourself.
Posted by: Rex Little at December 1, 2014 1:31 PM

When I was a kid, making a telephone call was no where close to private because most people had party lines.

A wire tap was totally unnecessary, because nothing you said was private.

I have gotten better with my cell phone. I mostly text in public places.

I have a certain sympathy for those who wish to return to the bucolic days of the 1950's is some aspects of their lives, without all the nasty stuff like polio, the Korean War, and a 90 percent top income tax bracket.

But at the same time I think the tradeoff...a little more rudeness, and public noise.... has been well worth the convenience of cell phones.

I remember waiting in my apartment in Germany in the pre cell phone days.... all day on one of my few precious days off, for a friend who said she was going to call me that day, to meet up for lunch, but never did.

I cant get back several hundred hours,spent waiting for a lot of people who were either habitually late, or just didn't show up. (And if someone is driving, I don't want them texting me)

My friend combats intrusive cellphone talkers by filling in the unheard side of the conversation in a loud stage whisper. He riffs outrageous scenarios with drama, wit, sarcasm, a touch of camp and perfect comedic timing, suitable for all ages. His ability to fit his remarks to what the victim says next is uncanny. The talker usually slinks off red-faced, while everyone else in earshot is visibly amused.
Perhaps the fill-in function is on overdrive on his brain and has mutated into a talent. All I know is he is one of the few people who can tempt me to go shopping in physical stores. It's street theatre at it's finest.

> He riffs outrageous scenarios with
> drama, wit, sarcasm, a touch of camp
> and perfect comedic timing, suitable
> for all ages.

A friend at a station I used to work at could that for muted television show... Programming had become so routine that he knew exactly when to cut from one voice to another for almost any program. The laughter from his talent brought the saltiest tears I ever tasted, but his narratives were NOT suitable for children.

> It's not fair game unless the person
> has done something wrong or is a public
> figure and there's bearing on their
> fitness for office, etc.

Gossip has resources that journalists can't dream of.

I mean, your response is weirdly professional. You personally aren't a publisher, even for the many papers that publish you.

The vast majority of people who annoy us by talking publicly on cell phones are not corporations or public officials with the resources or inclination to initiate a court action after we've offended them; once the wife learns about the mistress, or whatever, the deed is done, and will likely be untraceable in any case.

It will never again be the case that the front page of the town's newspaper is the only way to get into trouble.

See also.

It's a dynamic world out there.

I suggest reading the section on privacy rights in my book, "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", referencing Brandeis and Warren's 1898 Harvard Law Review article on privacy. I'm too wiped out to go find the quote now, but essentially, a person has a right to decide which of their words, thoughts, etc., are for public consumption. When you speak in a group of friends, you are speaking differently than if you were speaking to a New York Times reporter.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 1, 2014 5:09 PM

I suspect you are misreading the article, or someone you trust has misinterpreted it for you. You did say 1898 right? That was not only before the internet, it was pre telephone.

Public figures have less protection under libel and slander laws than an ordinary citizen, but if you as a private citizen say something in public, loose a letter, misdirect an email, or someone overhears you on your phone, you don't have any expectation of privacy in those now public communications.

In fact it wasn't until Griswold v. Connecticut that the Supreme Court found an expectation of privacy in the use of birth control. That was 1965. It was, I believe the first time any right to privacy was mentioned by the Supreme Court.