Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]
  From: <ama2022@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:26:44 -0400

Re: telemarketers

By that logic, are television and radio commercials
unconstitutional?

Quoting lp2160@columbia.edu:

>
> This very much looks like a letter deceiving people to release
> their
> phone numbers by calling the number or visit the website, like
> the
> fraud emails inducing people to release their bank account
> details.
>
> Camden: Not only shall we not pay for the vexing calls, but also
> not
> to receive them.  The latter shall more important.  As a person
> in a
> free society, we shall be able to free ourselves from wasting our
> time receiving calls that are not from the intended callers.  The
> vexing calls are like the junk mails, except much worse.  It took
> not only money, but more importantly the time.  Time always ties
> up
> to freedom.  Otherwise, we would only pick up those calls that we
> can identify the caller.
>
> My thought is that as part of the meaning of freedom of speech,
> we
> are free to choose not to hear any speech that we do not want to
> listen to.
> Lingyan
>
> Quoting Camden Hutchison <crh2014@columbia.edu>:
>
> > A friend of mine just sent me this e-mail:
> >
> > "In a few weeks, cellular telephone numbers are being released
> to
> > telemarketers.  Calls will start coming in to your cell phone,
> > wasting your time and your minutes used.  Call this number
> > 1-888-382-1222 from your cell phone in order to be put on the
> do
> > not call list.  It will block your number for five years.  You
> > can
> > also do this on-line at https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx
> to
> > register."
> >
> > I looked around on the donotcall web page, but I can't figure
> out
> > what "in a few weeks, cellular telephone numbers are being
> > released
> > to telemarketers" is referring to.  Does anyone know anything
> > about
> > this?  I do know that I have never received a telemarketing
> call
> > on
> > my cell phone.
> >
> > My response to this would be "congress shall make no law...
> > abridging the freedom of speech," except for the fact that cell
> > phone users generally have to pay for incoming calls.  I think
> > that
> > this adds to what would be pure speech an element of harm
> capable
> > of
> > regulation.  In other words, obnoxious people can call me, but
> > they
> > shouldn't be able to force me to pay for it.
> >
> > -Camden
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list



Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]