I'm surprised to see that you have come in on the side of the 'keep the tards at home' crowd. But you are not alone. I had the impression you were a 'get a life!' type person.

Actually, I'm neither. I'm the type of person who figures it's up to the theater management to make the call, because it's their theater. Whom am I to tell them one way or the other.

It is because of the other patrons, however, that the theater management acted the way they did. They made their business decision so as to appeal to the biggest group of paying customers. It's the same market force that pigeon holes 99% of all movies into the PG-13 category. I may not agree with it, but it is their right.

OR.. maybe I was just sucking up to John Hawkins. His quarterly rankings are coming out soon. (grin)

Hawkins uses the tactic of conflating the childs behavior beyond what Loews reported. By the end of the article everyone should be cheering that the little SOB has been ejected. But that is simply dishonest and Hawkins is dishonest for writing his little fiction to justify a heartless reaction from Loews and Hawkins himself.
Someone complained about what Loews described as inappropriate and too loud laughter, probably not realizing the offender was handicapped. The idiot Loews employee then ejected the child, even suggesting that the parent could leave her wheelchair bound, autistic child outside and return to the movie!
If one wants to watch a movie without the distraction of other people enjoying it too, then stay home and rent. It is cheaper and humiliating handicapped families will not have to be part of the experience.

Hmmm. I didn't read it that critically.

mikem,
You are absolutely correct about the idiocy of suggesting the family could leave the kid outside by himself on the sidewalk. After that we part company.
You may well have a lot of tolerance for other people's inappropriate laughter or noise during a movie, but what gives you the right to decide what everyone else has to tolerate? I think you are being way too holier-than-thou about this.
"If one wants to watch a movie without the distraction of other people enjoying it too..."
I'd say you are conflating the child's behavior into something acceptable. It is the theater manager's job to decide what is acceptable behavior. If enough patrons complained about the noise from the child, he was obligated to do something about it.
It is too bad the family had to go through this but they were demanding the right to subject a theater full of strangers to obnoxious behavior. They and you should get real.

I'm going strictly by what the Loews people reported, and I did not read "obnoxious behavior", as you cleverly shifted the description to.
Holier than thou? That is always the charge used by those who try to justify their obnoxious selfishness.
This is a handicapped kid who could not know that he was irritating anyone. And that is the point. If he had been a punk deliberately trying to ruin the movie experience for everyone else, then I could see booting him. Doesn't compassion and understanding mitigate anything these days?
I am surprised to see so many conservative bloggers agreeing with Loews' actions. Usually those who believe in self responsibility are the quickest to show compassion for those who do not have the ability to be responsible. Maybe the liberals are right. Maybe conservatives are too much 'me' and not enough 'we'.
Thanks for letting me rant, Steve.

I think it's a tough call either way. Personally I support the theater's right to make the call, while you guys are arguing over the call they made.

Maybe the kid was being loud and obnoxious and deserved to get the boot. Or, maybe the theater jumped the gun and booted him too soon. I wasn't there, so it's hard to second guess.

All I was meaning to say was that it's the theater's right to make the call and they had to consider the enjoyment of the other patrons.