From: <lp2160@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:34:35 -0400

Re: telemarketers

Because of the compulsory speech, you have to answer the phone
before your know it is the telemarketer.  I personally feel more
troubled when receive an unintended call than watching TV
commercials.  As a mere fact, people do not watch TV all the time,
but people are more and more dependent on cellphones now.  How many
people shut their phones at night?  But how many people keep their
TVs on after falling asleep?  As we are in a "transitional phrase",
we cannot afford not to answer a call, because it might be a call
informing you an interview:)  It might as well be a call from your
parents, or the people you care from a distant place, using an
unfamiliar telephone asking you for help.

This reminds me of a class in copyright, when we were discussing
whether the audience choose not to watch the commercials violates
hte author's derivative works, because you basically "edit" the
copyrighted work by not watching the commercials.  Of course that
concerns a fixation issue.

By referring to "delicate line", I meant complicated and subtle line
that is hard to draw, but worthy of trying.

I am not sure whether my emails shall be categorized as junk email
or not... which takes our classmates who do read them some
minutes:)

Have a good weekend!
Lingyan

Quoting ama2022@columbia.edu:

>
> 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
>



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