4 ms·

I'm glad something is being done and it's being reported. But it's only one guy, and there's an epidemic of these annoying calls. My elderly father gets dozen

I'm glad something is being done and it's being reported. But it's only one guy, and there's an epidemic of these annoying calls. My elderly father gets dozens of them a week on his landline, and I get a spoofed number at least once a day, from an exchange very similar to my own. It's funny how freedom of speech is considered in light of for-profit stuff like this (in the Bloomberg article it was the misleading nature of the calls, not the calls themselves), but not with regards to stuff like hate speech and political speech. In an ethical world, it would be time for a flip: heavily regulate the commercial elements of speech.

commandlinefan 9y ago
It's gotten to the point where I don't even answer the phone anymore unless the number is in my contact list - it's starting to cause issues at work, because I occasionally get calls from coworkers (or even my boss) from numbers I don't recognize. This is long since past the point where something needs to be done.
icebraining 9y ago
In an ethical world, it would be time for a flip: heavily regulate the commercial elements of speech. You're lucky: in the US, that's already the case legally. There's no such thing as an hate speech exception to the First Amendment, and political speech in general is mostly untouchable, whereas commercial speech can be much more regulated. Which is why this man is facing a $120M fine.
gowld 9y ago
? hate speech in USA is protected unless it directly triggers violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... political speech in USA is also highly protected -- political calls are even exempt from anti-telemarketing laws that exist today. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0717.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0717.htm Current law explicitly says that commercial speech is less protected than non-commerical speech.
jonhendry18 9y ago
They concentrate on the elderly, because they are more likely to fall for scams.

commandlinefan 9y ago

It's gotten to the point where I don't even answer the phone anymore unless the number is in my contact list - it's starting to cause issues at work, because I occasionally get calls from coworkers (or even my boss) from numbers I don't recognize. This is long since past the point where something needs to be done.

icebraining 9y ago

In an ethical world, it would be time for a flip: heavily regulate the commercial elements of speech. You're lucky: in the US, that's already the case legally. There's no such thing as an hate speech exception to the First Amendment, and political speech in general is mostly untouchable, whereas commercial speech can be much more regulated. Which is why this man is facing a $120M fine.

gowld 9y ago

? hate speech in USA is protected unless it directly triggers violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... political speech in USA is also highly protected -- political calls are even exempt from anti-telemarketing laws that exist today. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0717.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0717.htm Current law explicitly says that commercial speech is less protected than non-commerical speech.

jonhendry18 9y ago

They concentrate on the elderly, because they are more likely to fall for scams.