5 ms·

While I wholeheartedly agree with conserving our natural resources, I'm pretty sure this law is going to be overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional

by lotusleaf1987 15y ago

While I wholeheartedly agree with conserving our natural resources, I'm pretty sure this law is going to be overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech. It's been a long time since my Constitutional Law class, but IIRC there are many precedents, several involving Jehova's witnesses (they were a persecuted minority at the time), passing out leaflets and flyers and having similar laws passed and overturned. Here's a similar situation in Texas in 2005: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-judge-texas-man-may-leaflet-in-illinois-state-building http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-judge-texas-man-... U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo ruled earlier this month that the law violates the Constitution because it gives state officials too much discretion in determining when to issue permits and prohibits religious exhibits. Castillo also faulted the law for banning people who want to distribute leaflets from approaching the public without providing an exception in cases where people consent to being approached. “The judge reaffirmed the First Amendment principles and showed that the First Amendment rights are valued in Chicago,” said Elizabeth Murray, whose client Kevin Cantrell filed the lawsuit in April 2004 against officials at the Thompson Center and the state Department of Central Management Services. The center is the state's main government building in Chicago. “This also protects more than just religious leafletters. It protects all who want to leaflet, so it is of great value to the citizens of Illinois,” said Murray, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Cantrell.

joshaidan 15y ago
I'm interested to find out if you're right. I guess ultimately it will take advertisers pulling their ads from the yellow pages for them to stop publishing it.
rhizome 15y ago
I'm pretty sure this law is going to be overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech Nobody's saying they can't print the books, they just can't dump their spam garbage on my stoop like they do every four months.
- lotusleaf1987 15y ago
  Printing the books isn't the act that constitutes speech, it's the act of passing them out to others. To ban their 'dump[ing]' and spamming is unfortunately tantamount to banning their speech altogether. I'm don't disagree with the law, I actually support it, but I think it's very likely it will ultimately be repealed.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    What about an opt-out? Is it suppression of free speech to not be tortured with phone calls during dinner every, single, night? I'd arguably be more upset about this due to the complete waste of resources and generation of additional litter. (edit, as someone else has noted, there appears to be an opt-out. I'd have to say I'd argue in favor of letting them then. )
    - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
      I really don't know, I'm a paralegal not a lawyer yet. Everyone in this thread is bringing up interesting points.
    - MichaelGG 15y ago
      An opt-out is a good defense that the companies should have done a long time ago to avoid criticism and getting into this situation in the first place. It's doubtful that too many people would take advantage of it, and the companies can just point and say "see, we allow an opt-out!". But as a society, I think an opt-out is a poor thing to encourage. If the behaviour is not acceptable, why should people have to opt-out, instead of opting in?
      - LogicX 15y ago
        They've had this for many years: http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com/ http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com/
  - MichaelGG 15y ago
    No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent. I don't think that's barring free speech in any way, is it? Also, don't littering/nuisance laws start to come into play, at some point? What's the difference between a phone book and a similarly sized brick with "Jesus loves you -- call us to find out more" on it? Can I go around leaving bricks all over the place under the guise of free speech?
benmccann 15y ago
I don't think a law banning phone books could be considered as a ban on free speech. A phone book is not speech. Speech is expression that communicates a message. A phone book is a reference material and does not communicate any message, position, or view.
- Retric 15y ago
  A phone book contains advertizing which does communicate a message by definition.

joshaidan 15y ago

I'm interested to find out if you're right. I guess ultimately it will take advertisers pulling their ads from the yellow pages for them to stop publishing it.

rhizome 15y ago

I'm pretty sure this law is going to be overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech Nobody's saying they can't print the books, they just can't dump their spam garbage on my stoop like they do every four months.

lotusleaf1987 15y ago
Printing the books isn't the act that constitutes speech, it's the act of passing them out to others. To ban their 'dump[ing]' and spamming is unfortunately tantamount to banning their speech altogether. I'm don't disagree with the law, I actually support it, but I think it's very likely it will ultimately be repealed.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  What about an opt-out? Is it suppression of free speech to not be tortured with phone calls during dinner every, single, night? I'd arguably be more upset about this due to the complete waste of resources and generation of additional litter. (edit, as someone else has noted, there appears to be an opt-out. I'd have to say I'd argue in favor of letting them then. )
  - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
    I really don't know, I'm a paralegal not a lawyer yet. Everyone in this thread is bringing up interesting points.
  - MichaelGG 15y ago
    An opt-out is a good defense that the companies should have done a long time ago to avoid criticism and getting into this situation in the first place. It's doubtful that too many people would take advantage of it, and the companies can just point and say "see, we allow an opt-out!". But as a society, I think an opt-out is a poor thing to encourage. If the behaviour is not acceptable, why should people have to opt-out, instead of opting in?
    - LogicX 15y ago
      They've had this for many years: http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com/ http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com/
- MichaelGG 15y ago
  No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent. I don't think that's barring free speech in any way, is it? Also, don't littering/nuisance laws start to come into play, at some point? What's the difference between a phone book and a similarly sized brick with "Jesus loves you -- call us to find out more" on it? Can I go around leaving bricks all over the place under the guise of free speech?

benmccann 15y ago

I don't think a law banning phone books could be considered as a ban on free speech. A phone book is not speech. Speech is expression that communicates a message. A phone book is a reference material and does not communicate any message, position, or view.

Retric 15y ago
A phone book contains advertizing which does communicate a message by definition.