4 ms·
Postal services have funny laws that are often way more serious than you'd think - I'd worry that by lying on a form like this you're committing a much more sev
by chrisseaton 4y ago
Postal services have funny laws that are often way more serious than you'd think - I'd worry that by lying on a form like this you're committing a much more severe crime than you realise.
- dilyevsky 4y agoWho said anything about lying?
- haneefmubarak 4y ago> Title 39, United States Code, Section 3008 authorizes the Postal Service™ to issue a prohibitory order against a mailer who sends you an advertisement offering to sell any matter that you, in your own discretion, believe to be “erotically arousing or sexually provocative.”
- chrisseaton 4y ago> you, in your own discretion, believe to be “erotically arousing or sexually provocative.” If you don't genuinely believe it to be this, and are just using it to get out of junk-mail, then you're lying on an official form.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoIt's actually pretty easy to induce a Pavlovian response to just about anything. Neural plasticity and response conditioning are on our side here.
- PKop 4y agoWho is going to litigate that lie? How could one prove it to be false?
- chrisseaton 4y ago> How could one prove it to be false? You ask a judge or jury to use their common sense. Were you aroused by a pizza coupon? No, obviously not.
- rks404 4y agogetting sent to horny jail by the post office police would be a hell of a thing t have on a dating profile
- encryptluks2 4y agoProb would be horny federal prison since it would be a federal crime.
- wsh 4y agoThere is no lying, though: the law (39 U.S.C. § 3008) leaves the decision about whether mail is a “pandering advertisement” to “the addressee in his sole discretion,” which avoids the First Amendment problems that might arise if the decision were reviewable by a government official, who would then be acting as a censor. It’s been upheld by the Supreme Court; see Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970), in which the Court held: Both the absoluteness of the citizen’s right under §4009* and its finality are essential; what may not be provocative to one person may well be to another. In operative effect the power of the householder under the statute is unlimited; he may prohibit the mailing of a dry goods catalog because he objects to the contents—or indeed the text of the language touting the merchandise. Congress provided this sweeping power not only to protect privacy but to avoid possible constitutional questions that might arise from vesting the power to make any discretionary evaluation of the material in a governmental official. * Later renumbered to § 3008.