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.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Constitution Does Not Defend The Right To Annoy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
dorpus says:

Extradition Solution

Could we partner with some undemocratic country like Saudi Arabia or North Korea, so that they issue the death penalty against spammers? Then spammers who send to mailboxes owned by someone in that country could then be extradited, where they are decapitated.

Or we could force them to provide “community service” by working for the peace corps in Afghanistan, which amounts to the same thing.

Beck says:

Do Not Call Needs to be All-Inclusive

The editorial is being disingenuous about the Do Not Call list with regard to the first amendment ruling. The judge never said that telemarketers have a constitutional right to annoy people with phone calls. What he actually said is that the rule violates the first amendment because it prohibits commercial telemarketer calls but allows calls by charitable organizations and political groups. The reasoning is that the federal government is making a distinction about whether or not a call is allowed based on the content of the call.

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?

Oliver Wendell Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re: get caller ID

Get a Caller ID box that comes with a call blocking feature. Mine does.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...