The Constitution Does Not Defend The Right To Annoy
from the indeed! dept
A nice little editorial summarizing what has been said way too often by all of us who can't stand spammers and telemarketers standing behind the First Amendment. Free speech does
not mean you have the right to annoy people. It does not mean you have the right to invade our homes and bother us. Of course, the article then goes on to say that California's anti-spam law and the laws that may get passed by Congress are a good start. I wish that were true, but I fear the unintended consequences of all the laws proposed so far will cause more problems than they solve. I wish I knew what the perfect solution was - but I haven't seen it yet.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Extradition Solution
Or we could force them to provide "community service" by working for the peace corps in Afghanistan, which amounts to the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do Not Call Needs to be All-Inclusive
The obvious solution is that the Do Not Call regulations must prohibit ALL calls. Congress fixed the first judge's objection, but what are the odds that they'll ram through Congress a bill that prohibits political fundraising calls?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So... Dress your SPAM up as...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
get caller ID
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: get caller ID
When I receive a call from someone I don't want to hear from again, I press the Copy To button and select Phonebook or Block List.
If I select Block List and the person calls back the box picks up the phone and then hangs it up.
If I press Phonebook it copies it to it's 'permanent' memory of which it has 64K so it stores a lot of phone numbers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]