From: <lp2160@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:12:04 -0400

Re: telemarketers

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