4 ms·

> As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Can you elaborate? Every source

> As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Can you elaborate? Every source I've seen says that politicians have exempted themselves from the spam laws. e.g. a random google result: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/01/31/tired-political-text-messages-do-not-call-list-wont-help/6613616001/ https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/202... > That's because the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to political text messages. If you know a way around this, please spill the beans!

strongpigeon 4y ago
I saw that as well on the FTC's website [0]. Curious if you can actually prevent them. [0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-registry-faqs https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
cwkoss 4y ago
I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years. Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    > You will never be able to do so Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      Not in our generation. The current thought process of conservative jurists is that money is speech and the founders wanted corporate entities to have unencumbered speech.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences. > Or the supreme court create a new interpretation? Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    Stand by while I make the case that politicians filling my phone with texts and voice messages is a violation of the third amendment.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    > because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?
  - Teever 4y ago
    Freedom of speech isnt freedom to make people listen. If I tell someone to stop calling me and they dont its harassment.
- justrudd 4y ago
  I wasn't paying attention and used one my primary email addresses when donating. Account is basically worthless now. So much spam. Even from candidates in states I've never lived in or currently reside in.
- ddingus 4y ago
  I did too, and so far I've been able to end the messages with "STOP" They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew? If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue. I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc... So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP" This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire. Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.
gnopgnip 4y ago
Political txt, email and calls are (mostly)protected by the first amendment as free speech. It would be unconstitutional for the government to restrict it with very limited exceptions, mostly related to imminent threats of violence. Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers. So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.
- game-of-throws 4y ago
  There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you. I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
  - runnerup 4y ago
    > I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone). A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”. Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless. I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper. Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.
    - game-of-throws 4y ago
thathndude 4y ago
But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts. Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages. not legal advice
raldi 4y ago
At least in San Francisco, I took my phone number and email off my voter registration years ago and now almost never get any political texts, calls, or email, despite being quite politically active.

strongpigeon 4y ago

I saw that as well on the FTC's website [0]. Curious if you can actually prevent them. [0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-registry-faqs https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...

cwkoss 4y ago

I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years. Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.

tptacek 4y ago
You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!
- Archelaos 4y ago
  > You will never be able to do so Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Not in our generation. The current thought process of conservative jurists is that money is speech and the founders wanted corporate entities to have unencumbered speech.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences. > Or the supreme court create a new interpretation? Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Stand by while I make the case that politicians filling my phone with texts and voice messages is a violation of the third amendment.
- dataflow 4y ago
  > because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?
- Teever 4y ago
  Freedom of speech isnt freedom to make people listen. If I tell someone to stop calling me and they dont its harassment.
justrudd 4y ago
I wasn't paying attention and used one my primary email addresses when donating. Account is basically worthless now. So much spam. Even from candidates in states I've never lived in or currently reside in.
ddingus 4y ago
I did too, and so far I've been able to end the messages with "STOP" They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew? If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue. I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc... So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP" This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire. Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.

gnopgnip 4y ago

Political txt, email and calls are (mostly)protected by the first amendment as free speech. It would be unconstitutional for the government to restrict it with very limited exceptions, mostly related to imminent threats of violence. Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers. So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.

game-of-throws 4y ago
There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you. I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
- runnerup 4y ago
  > I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone). A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”. Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless. I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper. Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.
  - game-of-throws 4y ago

thathndude 4y ago

But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts. Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages. not legal advice

raldi 4y ago

At least in San Francisco, I took my phone number and email off my voter registration years ago and now almost never get any political texts, calls, or email, despite being quite politically active.