4 ms·

I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing. I don't actuall

by adamch 7y ago

I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing. I don't actually believe this argument, but I'm curious what self-described free speech absolutists think.

bduerst 7y ago
The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private organizations to block spam calls by default.
- thfuran 7y ago
  When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Not at all. When all channels are owned and operated by private companies, then it is _clearly_ not government censorship.
    - thfuran 7y ago
      It's clearly not a free speech issue in much the same way that when military actions are conducted by private contractors instead of soldiers, violations of the rules of engagement are purely a private commercial issue and not the fault of the government.
airstrike 7y ago
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. No right is absolute, as a matter of fact.
jerf 7y ago
Freedom of speech includes the ability to be free from speech. You have the right to say things; you do not have the right to force people to listen. There are some obvious nuances around different media, especially around physical audio in the real world, where just because you're saying something that is reaching people's ears does not within reason mean you're "forcing" them to "hear" it, but in the case of a robocall it's definitely an attempt to force itself on you, especially in light of the Do Not Call list providing positive in-advance affirmation of a lack of desire to hear this particular speech. I think is one of those cases where a "reasonable person" standard works pretty well and trying to get nitpicky on "but what if...?" is mostly a way to get yourself turned around in circles, not a path to enlightenment. (If nothing else, you can't have a generalized right to force other people to listen to you out of sheer scale; the many hundreds of thousands of people who would jump on that "right" to do something would consume well in excess of 100% of your time if such a right generally existed, in our current socio-technological landscape in which broadcast is so easy and readily available to everyone. Robocalls are an example of that problem squeezing through even despite our layers of protection; it would be far worse if our society determined there was a right to such things.)
bcheung 7y ago
I tend towards freedom of speech more than most. I can understand an argument that says calling someone is freedom of speech. I don't think this violates that though. Of course, it will all depend on the actual implementation. A good analogy would be stopping someone on the street and trying to talk to them. In most cases, you have that right. But the other person also has the right to ignore you. It sounds like the phone companies won't block without your permission, they will give you (the consumer) the tools to block based on your own criteria. Social media platforms have different levels of interruption from direct messages depending on whether someone is already your friend. They categorize direct messages from strangers and suspected spammers differently but they usually still provide a section you can check to see them. Gmail does the same with the spam folder. I could see something like that where you have a separate spam section where you can see a history of who tried to call you but don't get notifications from it. A system like that would be hard to argue that they are blocking freedom of speech.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
On the other hand, I'm compelled by law to part with my property to fund the FCC, because they must regulate shared communication resources for the common, public good. If they can't stop intentionally deceptive businesses that spoof their identity on those shared resources from calling my elderly parents 3 times a day because of freedom of speech, they can go ahead and return a bunch of my property and let me do what I want with my ham radio.
bluGill 7y ago
Fraud, harassment, and robot. You can call all your want. I do not give robots rights. You - or your representative -can personally call anyone you want to. You can have a robot dial the phone even - but you need to be personally on the line when the call connects, not a millisecond latter. Harassment is illegal so you won't be calling me more than once. Even without a do not call, you won't call more than once unless you can show the call is different from the last time in a significant way. You won't get out of this by starting a different "shell company" to call me again either. Fraud is also illegal. This stops most instances right there. Note that it is also fraud to take up excessive time, if I've "won a car" I better get a car with not much more than the legal paperwork.
Thrymr 7y ago
Funny how those "small businesses" never seem to use their real contact number and business name on their caller ID. If an actual person from a local business wants to cold call me with their actual name & number displayed up front, that's a lot more acceptable to me than random robocalls that spoof a number in my cell phone's area code that I haven't lived in for 5 years.

by adamch 7y ago

bduerst 7y ago

The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private organizations to block spam calls by default.

thfuran 7y ago
When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Not at all. When all channels are owned and operated by private companies, then it is _clearly_ not government censorship.
  - thfuran 7y ago
    It's clearly not a free speech issue in much the same way that when military actions are conducted by private contractors instead of soldiers, violations of the rules of engagement are purely a private commercial issue and not the fault of the government.

airstrike 7y ago

Freedom of speech isn't absolute. No right is absolute, as a matter of fact.

jerf 7y ago

Freedom of speech includes the ability to be free from speech. You have the right to say things; you do not have the right to force people to listen. There are some obvious nuances around different media, especially around physical audio in the real world, where just because you're saying something that is reaching people's ears does not within reason mean you're "forcing" them to "hear" it, but in the case of a robocall it's definitely an attempt to force itself on you, especially in light of the Do Not Call list providing positive in-advance affirmation of a lack of desire to hear this particular speech. I think is one of those cases where a "reasonable person" standard works pretty well and trying to get nitpicky on "but what if...?" is mostly a way to get yourself turned around in circles, not a path to enlightenment. (If nothing else, you can't have a generalized right to force other people to listen to you out of sheer scale; the many hundreds of thousands of people who would jump on that "right" to do something would consume well in excess of 100% of your time if such a right generally existed, in our current socio-technological landscape in which broadcast is so easy and readily available to everyone. Robocalls are an example of that problem squeezing through even despite our layers of protection; it would be far worse if our society determined there was a right to such things.)

bcheung 7y ago

I tend towards freedom of speech more than most. I can understand an argument that says calling someone is freedom of speech. I don't think this violates that though. Of course, it will all depend on the actual implementation. A good analogy would be stopping someone on the street and trying to talk to them. In most cases, you have that right. But the other person also has the right to ignore you. It sounds like the phone companies won't block without your permission, they will give you (the consumer) the tools to block based on your own criteria. Social media platforms have different levels of interruption from direct messages depending on whether someone is already your friend. They categorize direct messages from strangers and suspected spammers differently but they usually still provide a section you can check to see them. Gmail does the same with the spam folder. I could see something like that where you have a separate spam section where you can see a history of who tried to call you but don't get notifications from it. A system like that would be hard to argue that they are blocking freedom of speech.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

On the other hand, I'm compelled by law to part with my property to fund the FCC, because they must regulate shared communication resources for the common, public good. If they can't stop intentionally deceptive businesses that spoof their identity on those shared resources from calling my elderly parents 3 times a day because of freedom of speech, they can go ahead and return a bunch of my property and let me do what I want with my ham radio.

bluGill 7y ago

Fraud, harassment, and robot. You can call all your want. I do not give robots rights. You - or your representative -can personally call anyone you want to. You can have a robot dial the phone even - but you need to be personally on the line when the call connects, not a millisecond latter. Harassment is illegal so you won't be calling me more than once. Even without a do not call, you won't call more than once unless you can show the call is different from the last time in a significant way. You won't get out of this by starting a different "shell company" to call me again either. Fraud is also illegal. This stops most instances right there. Note that it is also fraud to take up excessive time, if I've "won a car" I better get a car with not much more than the legal paperwork.

Thrymr 7y ago

Funny how those "small businesses" never seem to use their real contact number and business name on their caller ID. If an actual person from a local business wants to cold call me with their actual name & number displayed up front, that's a lot more acceptable to me than random robocalls that spoof a number in my cell phone's area code that I haven't lived in for 5 years.