Japanese Town Proposes Two-Hour Daily Limit on Smartphones (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0178918472
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/28/186258/japanese-town-proposes-two-hour-daily-limit-on-smartphones
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlew2rv337o
> The proposal, believed to be the first of its kind in Japan, is currently being debated by lawmakers after being submitted by Toyoake municipal government in Aichi earlier this week. Toyoake's mayor said the proposal -- which only applies outside of work and study -- would not be strictly enforced, but rather was meant to "encourage" residents to better manage their screen time.
>
> There will be no penalties for breaking the rule, which will be passed in October if approved by lawmakers. "The two hour limit... is merely a guideline... to encourage citizens," Toyoake Mayor Masafumi Koki said in a statement. "This does not mean the city will limit its residents' rights or impose duties," he said.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlew2rv337o
Toothless (Score:2)
Do or do not, there is no trite guideline that will make a difference.
If they are going to try, they may want to pick something easier first. Getting people to put down their crack pipes after two hours seems more achievable.
Huh? (Score:2)
I have software running on my phone all day, 24/7. What exactly constitutes use?
Re: (Score:1)
It's really not that hard to figure out and your not all that cute.
If the phone is unlocked and your face is buried in it that's usage.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're going to scan your face?
Re: (Score:2)
> and your not all that cute.
His WHAT is not all that cute? At any rate, stop peeking at it.
Law Question (Score:2)
Does the US have any laws about behavior that specifies no enforcement and no penalties (and in this case, no means of determining when the law is broken and no definitions)?
Is this really something that's going to be a statute on the books, some kind of civil ordinance?
It seems like a weird kind of a "law".
Is it even legally possible to have a law like that here?
Sometimes governmemt bodies pass "resolutions" that are just random statements, usually celebrating someone of something with no actual effects at
Re: (Score:2)
> Is this really something that's going to be a statute on the books, some kind of civil ordinance?
This story is specifically about a municipality in Japan.
> It seems like a weird kind of a "law".
It's more or less defined as a "guideline", precisely because it's not going to be enforced as a law.
This is more akin to, say, the health department issuing guidelines on, say, dietary (or similar) things - merely suggestions for best health, but otherwise unenforceable. I'm just find it interesting that it would be acceptable from a local municipal government as opposed to a more "federal" government body.
Why not... (Score:2)
tell the heroin users "There will be no penalties for breaking the rule"? It'd be just as effective.
Phone addiction is a problem... (Score:2)
...that government CAN'T solve
Interesting (Score:3)
Interesting that this would even be considered (even merely as an unenforced "suggestion" or "guideline") - this is not something that would fly in North America (and I would imagine in many other regions, like EU or Australia, China India, etc.) without fierce opposition, even if, again, just as a guideline.
I guess there must be a massive difference in culture in Japan if they find this proposal acceptable enough to even be proposed publicly.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that shocking in an old folks district in Japan, the loss of face being caught using a phone for more than 2 hours would be devastating.
The old women patrol will be out looking for offenders to shame.
Re: (Score:1)
What got me was...."Are there that many people that actually USE a cell phone up to and more than 2 hours a day?!?!
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I'm a fierce believer of "individual liberties rock" camp (and live in the U.S.) and I'm okay with this. Not because I agree with it, but because it really does not affect me if they're not going to enforce it, monitor it, or talk to me about it. The worst thing about it is that it's a waste of taxpayer money, but then when has congress stopped wasting our money?
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm okay with this.
I'm not. All temperance movements eventually reach a point where someone comes along and decides they need teeth. If you want examples, look at history.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. I hear you, but it won't happen in this case. A "with tooth" law limiting phone use to 2 hours infringes so broadly on individual freedoms that it'd get struck down by any supreme court in a heartbeat. I'm not worried about this one.
Re: (Score:2)
> this is not something that would fly in North America (and I would imagine in many other regions, like EU or Australia, China India, etc.)
Let alone the public opposition, there is zero chance if this being constitutional *as a law* in EU countries. Though, as generic health guidelines, they already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The specific regulatory formulation probably wouldn't fly in the US; but a municipal regulation that has no enforcement, no penalties and "is merely a guideline... to encourage citizens" is basically just a public service announcement; which is something that's reasonably common and not especially controversial or legally fraught.
PSAs do tend to be treated as a bit of a punchline; but they are common enough; both outright state-sponsored ones and nominally-charitable private sector initiatives to make uns