3 ms·

is anyone going to tell me this violates the first amendment?

by wnevets 10y ago

clamprecht 10y ago
Commercial speech has less protection than other speech.
- Spivak 10y ago
  But not none, if legislation is needed it will probably mirror the CAN SPAM Act which be an improvement but probably doesn't go far enough for the HN crowd.
jasonjei 10y ago
I think this is a valid question--not sure why people want to bury this post, because I'm interested to hear this out. I think it's the same argument and laws that apply against emails. Some say that it's equally "first amendment" to block emails and phone calls. (IANAL) [0] [0] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spam http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spam
- jasode 10y ago
  Based on the type of companies participating with FCC (e.g. Google and Apple), my guess is that the technology will be a blacklist/whitelist "trust/reputation" database similar to web certificates. With such a database in place, smartphones like iPhone/Android will have updated software that can optionally screen the call's caller-id reputation. (Analogous to a web browser url bar have a "padlock" or blocking https pages from loading at all with bad certificates.) (If the above implementation is accurate, it means blocking robocalls will be feasible on smartphones but not legacy analog land line phones.) It wouldn't be a First Amendment issue because the owners of the phones can opt into blocking robotelemarketing callers. Same concept as AdBlock or putting "127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net" in your HOSTS. If modifying your HOSTS file or adding a email routing rule is GMail/MSOutlook to redirect mail to a trash folder is violating someone elses First Amendment rights, it's not an argument I've ever seen presented.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Note that "Google and Apple" aren't representative of the types of companies here, the media just obsesses about them. There are 33 companies in all. Mostly telecoms.
    - jasode 10y ago
      The "Robocall Strike Force" also includes smartphone manufacturers such as Ericsson, LG, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung so it would be misleading to think it's just 2 Silicon Valley technology companies and 31 telecoms. From the article, it looks like intelligence about VOIP is part of the potential solution. https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/08/us-carriers-join-apple-google-33-member-robocall-strike-force https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/08/us-carriers-join-a...
  - jasonjei 10y ago
    That's the argument I was making above--that being able to block emails and phone numbers is just as expressive as making phone calls and emails. Same thing with hosts file and ad blocking; people are guaranteed the right to privacy and not having to listen to other's speech is also freedom of speech. Just because you can make such speech doesn't mean I have to listen or read such speech.
maxerickson 10y ago
Why would you have a first amendment right to dial my private phone line?
tdb7893 10y ago
Not all speech is protected. Also in this case they aren't really stopping any specific speech but rather a method that is widely regarded as harassment
danjoc 10y ago
The TCPA already forbids robocalls to mobile numbers without prior express written consent[1]. This is merely about enforcement. First amendment arguments would be a bit late to the game at this stage. I actually saved a bunch of my junk calls and went looking for a lawyer. Those things are worth up to $1500 a piece so I was hoping to make some fast money. I was unable to find a lawyer who even knew what I was talking about. Referrals are welcome, thanks. [1]https://www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-prior-consent.pdf https://www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-prior-...
kldaace 10y ago
It actually may, and this is something being debated in the courts. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/28/judge-first-amendment-protects-political-robocalls/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/28/judge-first-amendment-pr...
- jasode 10y ago
  If Google and Apple were only participating to throw their around their weight as lobbyists to pass a new law -- similar to what Arkansas legislature tried to do, it might be a First Amendment debate. However, a key sentence from the article was: "concrete plans to accelerate the development and adoption of new tools and solutions," The "new tools" doesn't sound like crafting a law for a court to strike down but new technology to empower users to block the nuisance calls.
amyjess 10y ago
The constitution isn't a suicide pact. It's not a magic spell, either.

is anyone going to tell me this violates the first amendment?

by wnevets 10y ago

is anyone going to tell me this violates the first amendment?

clamprecht 10y ago

Commercial speech has less protection than other speech.

Spivak 10y ago
But not none, if legislation is needed it will probably mirror the CAN SPAM Act which be an improvement but probably doesn't go far enough for the HN crowd.

jasonjei 10y ago

I think this is a valid question--not sure why people want to bury this post, because I'm interested to hear this out. I think it's the same argument and laws that apply against emails. Some say that it's equally "first amendment" to block emails and phone calls. (IANAL) [0] [0] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spam http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spam

jasode 10y ago
Based on the type of companies participating with FCC (e.g. Google and Apple), my guess is that the technology will be a blacklist/whitelist "trust/reputation" database similar to web certificates. With such a database in place, smartphones like iPhone/Android will have updated software that can optionally screen the call's caller-id reputation. (Analogous to a web browser url bar have a "padlock" or blocking https pages from loading at all with bad certificates.) (If the above implementation is accurate, it means blocking robocalls will be feasible on smartphones but not legacy analog land line phones.) It wouldn't be a First Amendment issue because the owners of the phones can opt into blocking robotelemarketing callers. Same concept as AdBlock or putting "127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net" in your HOSTS. If modifying your HOSTS file or adding a email routing rule is GMail/MSOutlook to redirect mail to a trash folder is violating someone elses First Amendment rights, it's not an argument I've ever seen presented.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Note that "Google and Apple" aren't representative of the types of companies here, the media just obsesses about them. There are 33 companies in all. Mostly telecoms.
  - jasode 10y ago
    The "Robocall Strike Force" also includes smartphone manufacturers such as Ericsson, LG, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung so it would be misleading to think it's just 2 Silicon Valley technology companies and 31 telecoms. From the article, it looks like intelligence about VOIP is part of the potential solution. https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/08/us-carriers-join-apple-google-33-member-robocall-strike-force https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/08/us-carriers-join-a...
- jasonjei 10y ago
  That's the argument I was making above--that being able to block emails and phone numbers is just as expressive as making phone calls and emails. Same thing with hosts file and ad blocking; people are guaranteed the right to privacy and not having to listen to other's speech is also freedom of speech. Just because you can make such speech doesn't mean I have to listen or read such speech.

maxerickson 10y ago

Why would you have a first amendment right to dial my private phone line?

tdb7893 10y ago

Not all speech is protected. Also in this case they aren't really stopping any specific speech but rather a method that is widely regarded as harassment

danjoc 10y ago

The TCPA already forbids robocalls to mobile numbers without prior express written consent[1]. This is merely about enforcement. First amendment arguments would be a bit late to the game at this stage. I actually saved a bunch of my junk calls and went looking for a lawyer. Those things are worth up to $1500 a piece so I was hoping to make some fast money. I was unable to find a lawyer who even knew what I was talking about. Referrals are welcome, thanks. [1]https://www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-prior-consent.pdf https://www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-prior-...

kldaace 10y ago

It actually may, and this is something being debated in the courts. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/28/judge-first-amendment-protects-political-robocalls/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/28/judge-first-amendment-pr...

jasode 10y ago
If Google and Apple were only participating to throw their around their weight as lobbyists to pass a new law -- similar to what Arkansas legislature tried to do, it might be a First Amendment debate. However, a key sentence from the article was: "concrete plans to accelerate the development and adoption of new tools and solutions," The "new tools" doesn't sound like crafting a law for a court to strike down but new technology to empower users to block the nuisance calls.

amyjess 10y ago

The constitution isn't a suicide pact. It's not a magic spell, either.