From: <lp2160@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:59:32 -0400

Re: telemarketers

A short note: if you can stop people from commercial speech, you can
stop people from saying anything.  Any restraint on speech puts the
freedom of speech in severe danger.  (This might be somehow
overstated or wrong...I never took US Con Law)
Lingyan

Quoting jt2184@columbia.edu:

>
> About this telemarketers conversation... why is this relevant? Is
> it
> that we are trying to find a line beyond which "commercial"
> interference in our privacy is intolerable? There are a few
> things
> I will never understand about this country, (indeed there are
> many)
> One is how can a commercial be free speech, not to mention a
> telemarketer phone call... Certainly there is a difference
> between
> the two, but it is not a constitutional one.
> javier
>
> 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