The legislature promotes the ban on craft on the day of school

Smartphones are omnipresent in today's world, including in schools. But a law in the legislative of Alabama would ban telephones on school. We hear this week with Todd Stacy, the moderator of the Capital Journal and the public television of Alabama, of which and other legal measures.

The following conversation was dealt with out of clarity.

Give us more details about this cell phone into schools.

That is exactly it. They try to prohibit the use of mobile phones. The sentence is from “Bell zu Bell” – from the starting bell in the morning to the bell. There were talk about some conversations, there should be a 10-minute break to check your cell phone or the like. But the legislature really wants a complete ban.

This was set up in some districts in Alabama. In fact, before the committee, we had a local headmaster that they implemented a ban on cell phones in their schools this year, and they already see a difference in relation to the ability of the students to concentrate and not completely distracted from social media and also behavior things, bullying and such things. So I expect you to advance this bill. It could see some changes, but they want cell phones from the classroom from “Bell zu Bell.“

I found it remarkable that nobody spoke against this law on the law when it was in the hearing of the committee. It went out unanimously from the house and the Senate. How unusual is that?

This tends to happen for non -controversial legislation. You are right, there is not much setback to this bill from civil servants. What the setback gives is from the parents, but it's calm. You don't really want to admit that you have a problem with it. It is understandable. You want to be able to reach your child at school. From the point of view of a parent, they think about it and that is understandable. But it does not mean that you cannot bring phones on the campus. You simply cannot have them actively used in the classroom. And so I think that this is enough of a compromise that parents agree.

A further legal template before the legislator deals with technology in children. App stores must require to check the age of the users before downloading apps. Give us a feeling for how people dealt with it.

This really comes from an invoice that was adopted last year and which required an age review for adult websites, basically pornography. Therefore, you would basically want this situation for apps, for social media apps and to the extent that you have to verify your age and certain age -appropriate checks. This is not the only social media bill. There is talk about the restriction of the use of social media. It is talked about the fact that the consent of the parents is necessary if they are under the age of 18 or only prohibit the social media of students at a certain age, regardless of whether it is around 16 or 18 years old. This reflects what happens at the federal level. Our own Senator Katie Britt has legislation that deals with it.

It is a thorny problem because I think everyone agrees that there are risks and threats for children on the Internet. But there are implications for the first change, and the legislator wants to do the right thing, but they don't want to survive something that could either be unconstitutional or cause other problems on the street. But it is certainly something to see.

Finally, a legislation is made by a house committee that would increase legal protection for police officers. This draft law was approved, but not before a debate. Give us a feeling for this debate.

This is a big bill in this session. Quite controversial because they talk about the immunity of the police, which means that the official acted appropriately or inappropriately. There are obviously measures to discipline police officers who even accuse and condemn them. We saw that. Think only of the last five or six years and all the conversation about it. And so the legislators want to present more protection and more processes to ensure that the officials are protected from perhaps royal law enforcement and similar things. Her argument is that it is really difficult to recruit and keep police officers because they feel that nobody on their side is that they are not properly pursued by criminal law. So try to fix that. The blue action is called back.

But the Democrats have pushed back and say that we don't want it to go too far where it is not available to deal with police officers who are inappropriate. There are many back and forth negotiations that have many cross-party negotiations. I think that's remarkable because they don't try to hit it. And the Democrats, even though they are a great minority, are definitely at the table with this legislation of the police.