4 ms·

It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using t

by tedks 12y ago

It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen. If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on crime" measure.

ganeumann 12y ago
NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.
tptacek 12y ago
It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.
- tedks 12y ago
  There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.

by tedks 12y ago

ganeumann 12y ago

NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.

tptacek 12y ago

It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.

tedks 12y ago
There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.