Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Take it to the FB - this board is for seriously assinine discussions regarding politics only, not poetry.

you're right sorry. this started with my first winning, then refusing to pile on, in a political argument where NotCaseSensitive was floundering. I apologize to the Board.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the conservatives on this board (and elsewhere) are the true supporters of free speech.

I'm just trying to catch up a bit, but did any of you conservatives ever explain why I was the only one on these boards defending telemarketers' right to free speech?

Or am I supposed to ask this in a haiku?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you're right sorry. this started with my first winning, then refusing to pile on, in a political argument where NotCaseSensitive was floundering. I apologize to the Board.

You better go about seeing if you can make the board crash again before people read back to check out the substance of the discussion. And fuck you for mocking my moniker with the inappropriate capital letters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I'm just trying to catch up a bit, but did any of you conservatives ever explain why I was the only one on these boards defending telemarketers' right to free speech?

Or am I supposed to ask this in a haiku?

my first response, based solely upon your moniker, is sorry I've a cake in the oven I can't talk now, but to add some content let me ask you this.

Is it a violation of your right to free speech if I keep my phone number unlisted?
if you are yelling in the park across the street from my home, can i not shut my window, or would I violate your rights?
would I violate the rights of some boy who bothers my daughter by phone, if I obtain some order for him not to call her?

why can i not ask companies not to call me. And frankly, this is not a rep/dem issue. most telmarketers (the owners) are probably republican, only republicans respect filthy lucre enough to take on such a despised job.

I'm sure my questions fail to meet the Supreme Court standards from the Blah Blah case, but frankly, I am a prominent lawyer at a prestigous law firm. My available research time to post here is limited to the occasional google. I certainly have no time to correct the fact I took con law pass/fail at this point in my career.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I'm just trying to catch up a bit, but did any of you conservatives ever explain why I was the only one on these boards defending telemarketers' right to free speech?

Or am I supposed to ask this in a haiku?

Yes. Because the right to free speech is not unfettered. Insofar as you may have been objecting to the lines drawn between, e.g., commercial v. not-for-profit calls, I agree that none of this bs should be getting through to my phone or fax.

Insofar as you may have been objecting to a ban on uninvited, non-personal solicitations, than yes. You were not invited into my home.

As long as the law is applied neutrally, regardless of the actual content, than what specific right are you claiming under the free speech penumbra? The right to make my phone ring even though the phone company, the government, and me have all agreed that such a disaster should not happen if I act in advance to prevent it? Why can't I agree with the phone company to keep your calls out?

Which is to say, why should you be able to restrict, in any way, my right to choose who speaks in my home?

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Which is to say, why should you be able to restrict, in any way, my right to choose who speaks in my home?

Of course you have that right. Take the phone off the hook if you like. But that's not the question. Can the government establish penalties for calling you?

[Watchtower]

OK, free speech champions. My responses include statements that the right to free speech is limited and that, hey, we're just asking the companies not to call.

The question here is can the government impose significant fines on companies who simply seek to contact you. You, of course, always have the choice of not answering or not listing your number. Shut your window, that's fine. But don't ask the government to come in and haul someone out of the park or to take that perfectly polite person trying to contact you, by phone or at the door, to court.

So the honest conservatives among you can respond that the right is limited, and I can accept that. But, Mr. Hank, you're the one who said the conservatives were the true free speech advocates here. Come now. (And don't you have a cake in the oven.... you may want to get back to that.)

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Of course you have that right. Take the phone off the hook if you like. But that's not the question. Can the government establish penalties for calling you?

Ty, do I have a defender of such unpopular causes as telemarketers and Jehovah's Witnesses on the left? I am heartened!

(edited to add: any other defenders on either side? Bilmore? Fringey? Atticus? CTD?)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Of course you have that right. Take the phone off the hook if you like. But that's not the question. Can the government establish penalties for calling you?

Your question is out of context. If the government grants me the right to contract out of particular calls, can the government (or me) enforce that right?

What if we just call it a contractual right. Can we enforce it against the phone companies? Because, if so, the phone companies wouldn't even risk providing service to the telemarketers.

So just because you rephrase the question doesn't make the answer different. I'll just phrase the question the way I want, and answer it.

So you tell me, why can't the government mandate a right to choose whether to opt out of some calls? Why would choice be bad here?

Hello

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Physician, de-stick thyself.*

*a.k.a. Bitch, please.

Are you trying to say I seem a little unglued?

Where is Bilmore anyway?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Watchtower
The question here is can the government impose significant fines on companies who simply seek to contact you. You, of course, always have the choice of not answering or not listing your number. Shut your window, that's fine. But don't ask the government to come in and haul someone out of the park or to take that perfectly polite person trying to contact you, by phone or at the door, to court.

well again, you are asking a brain surgeon about your athlete's foot problem, but....... the FCC can control what goes over the radio waves, in Pump Up the Volume they were going to haul his ass away. how is that different that saying don't call Hank? not saying the statute was okay, I agree that the disparate treatment of different types of calls seemed screwed.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
OK, free speech champions. My responses include statements that the right to free speech is limited and that, hey, we're just asking the companies not to call.

The question here is can the government impose significant fines on companies who simply seek to contact you. You, of course, always have the choice of not answering or not listing your number. Shut your window, that's fine. But don't ask the government to come in and haul someone out of the park or to take that perfectly polite person trying to contact you, by phone or at the door, to court.

So the honest conservatives among you can respond that the right is limited, and I can accept that. But, Mr. Hank, you're the one who said the conservatives were the true free speech advocates here. Come now. (And don't you have a cake in the oven.... you may want to get back to that.)

OK, you do have a point. The government should not be fining people for infringing my rights. The government should allow me to sue someone for infringing my rights.

And why are you restricting my choices to not answering any calls or not listing my number? Why can't I choose who can and cannot reach me in advance? Specifically, why can't I contract for this if government makes the telcos play fair?

Hello

[Watchtower]

Hello, try this version of your post:

Your question is out of context. If the government grants me the right to contract out of interacting with black people, can the government (or me) enforce that right?

What if we just call it a contractual right. Can we enforce it against bus lines, trains, planes, hotels, and similar places? Because, if so, such places wouldn't even risk providing service to blacks.

So just because you rephrase the question doesn't make the answer different. I'll just phrase the question the way I want, and answer it.

So you tell me, why can't the government mandate a right to choose who we interact with? Why would choice be bad here?

So you see, it's all just a matter of how much this free speech stuff really means to you, and how much you are willing to compromise it. Permitting free speech means that you will, on occassion, hear some things you'd prefer not to. And you can walk away, hang up, or blow a foghorn if you like, but you're still going to have to deal with the unpopular for 10 seconds or so.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well again, you are asking a brain surgeon about your athlete's foot problem, but....... the FCC can control what goes over the radio waves, in Pump Up the Volume they were going to haul his ass away. how is that different that saying don't call Hank? not saying the statute was okay, I agree that the disparate treatment of different types of calls seemed screwed.

Or maybe I was asking a podiatrist about brain surgery?

What I'm really asking you is can you consider the right on this board, yourself included, the only real champions of free speech when you are ready to compromise it in this case?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Hello, try this version of your post:

Your question is out of context. If the government grants me the right to contract out of interacting with black people, can the government (or me) enforce that right?

What if we just call it a contractual right. Can we enforce it against bus lines, trains, planes, hotels, and similar places? Because, if so, such places wouldn't even risk providing service to blacks.

So just because you rephrase the question doesn't make the answer different. I'll just phrase the question the way I want, and answer it.

So you tell me, why can't the government mandate a right to choose who we interact with? Why would choice be bad here?

So you see, it's all just a matter of how much this free speech stuff really means to you, and how much you are willing to compromise it. Permitting free speech means that you will, on occassion, hear some things you'd prefer not to. And you can walk away, hang up, or blow a foghorn if you like, but you're still going to have to deal with the unpopular for 10 seconds or so.

As I've said many times, I'm no constitutional scholar, but isn't there some kind of "constitutional amendment" thingy that would apply to that kind of thing? I don't remember there being a constitutional amendment protecting people who use telephones.