From: <ama2022@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:11:04 -0400

Re: telemarketers

And the activity of determining whether or not the caller is a
telemarketer is different from the activity changing a radio
station or television station to avoid a different commercial is
constitutionally different because __________?

Both require some effort and time on your part, and "time always
ties up to freedom."

I dont mean to belate the point, but I do not see a "delicate line"
between freedom to speak and freedom from unwelcome speech as "the
beauty of freedom" - its a line that is extremely difficult
(impossible?) to draw based on any objective considerations.

Quoting lp2160@columbia.edu:

>
> But it is hard to tell whether the one is from the telemarketer
> or
> your friend.  In addition, you would have to politely tell the
> telemarketer that you are not interested.
>
> Quoting ama2022@columbia.edu:
>
> >
> > Just like you could choose not to answer your phone if a
> > telemarketer called you
> >
> > Quoting lp2160@columbia.edu:
> >
> > >
> > > What I mean is you can choose not to watch or listen to the
> > > commercials.  That is the beauty of freedom, the delicate
> line
> > > drawn between the freedom to speech, and free from unwelcome
> > > speech.
> > > Lingyan
> > >
> > > Quoting ama2022@columbia.edu:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>



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