3 ms·
|No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent. This may be the one sticking point they have around
by lotusleaf1987 15y ago
|No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent.
This may be the one sticking point they have around it. However, I wonder how this is any different than junk mail? Junk mail just pays the Post Office, how is that better/worse than paying an employee to pass out the flyer/phonebook/etc?
I think this is an interesting case and I'm looking forward to the outcome.
- MichaelGG 15y agoI don't know, but I would guess if junk mail is different, it is because of the special letter delivery laws that the US Post Office has. It would probably require some "CAN-SPAM" equivalent type law for letters to get rid of junk mail. But, as the PO gets paid for each letter, I doubt any such law would get through.
- lotusleaf1987 15y agoExactly, but if I was the lawyer defending the phonebooks, that's exactly the argument I'd make--that the PO was no different and that paying a government employee to deliver the document* shouldn't make the act any more legitimate than paying your own employee to do so. You could argue it's anti-competitive or that it's essentially a bribe to the government as well. *Document meaning any letter, junk mail, leaflet, flyer, or phonebook.