Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

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.

Uhm, nice try, but the list doesn't offer the black/white option. When that issue comes up, I'll be glad to tell you what I think.

However, to answer your question, instead of thinking of it as a list of people who can't call me, why not think about it as a list of people who can call me.

The phone companies have the call blocking services already, and they are presumably legal. So, is there a problem if the government mandates that phone companies offer me such a service? Because that's what they are doing, though on a level that is much less specific than the private call blocking services that are available already.

The private ones would let me block out black people.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I'm really asking you is can you consider the right on this board, yourself included, the only real champions of free speech

oh. I didn't understand the question. yes we are the only true champions. Bilmore, rest his sole, traveled world wide to gather each of us. We each have seperate powers specifically choosen to couteract one of the evil doers. I've the ability to belittle through poetry. It seldom comes in handy, not like say Club's knowledge of the law and ability to argue logically, so I usually sit around watching TV at our fortress of solitude.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bilmore, rest his sole, traveled world wide to gather each of us.

Yes, that must have made his feet tired. Perhaps he should have driven?

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uhm, nice try, but the list doesn't offer the black/white option. When that issue comes up, I'll be glad to tell you what I think.

However, to answer your question, instead of thinking of it as a list of people who can't call me, why not think about it as a list of people who can call me.

The phone companies have the call blocking services already, and they are presumably legal. So, is there a problem if the government mandates that phone companies offer me such a service? Because that's what they are doing, though on a level that is much less specific than the private call blocking services that are available already.

The private ones would let me block out black people.

Hello

You conservatives. Always sidestepping the issues and then looking for government mandates to solve the problems!

I believe I have made my point that the Right is not a champion of free speech. Fringey managed to also make another point that I hadn't gotten to yet that the left is also not a champion of free speech.

I will leave you to figure out how to draft your contract with the telephone company; let me suggest that if you are looking for some kind of a model the internet is not a bad place, since most internet services do have rules against spam. But all these rules are not mandated by the government. It really is a pity, but there are times when one must rely on a free market to preserve our freedoms.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
You conservatives. Always sidestepping the issues and then looking for government mandates to solve the problems!

Your lips are moving, but I'm still just hearing blah blah blah.

The phone companies are so heavily regulated that they practically are the government. So when I yell at my congressman, and my congressman yells at the FCC, well, I've just made my contract with the phone company.

Who knows what the phone companies would do if they weren't regulated. Until now, it was governmental mandates that enabled strangers to get calls route to me.

You didn't have a problem with those mandates, but now you have a problem when we amend them? Revise them? Cancel them?

I mean, if you think laws and regulations should never be changed if private parties will somehow be affected, I'll mark you down in the box of "how liberals like to sometimes improperly characterize conservatives". Uhm, that makes you your own cartoon.

Not to make it all personal or nuthin, its all in fun. But you see what I'm saying here? Why is this telco mandate not ok, when all the other telco ones were? They all relate to someone or other who wants to talk, er, enage in speech.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Watchtower


I believe I have made my point that the Right is not a champion of free speech. Fringey managed to also make another point that I hadn't gotten to yet that the left is also not a champion of free speech.

Only if you define "free speech" so broadly as to encompass essentially any action taken to any degree. Is it your position that any liberty embodied in the Constitution may be engaged in without any restraint whatsoever? That position is neither liberal nor conservative--it's simply extreme (and, coincidentally, not supported in any recent jurisprudence, which I know begs the question).

I will leave you to figure out how to draft your contract with the telephone company; let me suggest that if you are looking for some kind of a model the internet is not a bad place, since most internet services do have rules against spam. But all these rules are not mandated by the government. It really is a pity, but there are times when one must rely on a free market to preserve our freedoms.

Since when do the private spam rules work? The reason they don't is because enforcement, through the courts, is essentially impossible.

If one acknowledges that a private party has the right to refuse to receive speech on his own property, how does it then become a violation of the first amendment for the government to enforce violations of that decision any more than it is if the government enforces a trespassing ordinance?

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Your lips are moving, but I'm still just hearing blah blah blah.

The phone companies are so heavily regulated that they practically are the government. So when I yell at my congressman, and my congressman yells at the FCC, well, I've just made my contract with the phone company.

Who knows what the phone companies would do if they weren't regulated. Until now, it was governmental mandates that enabled strangers to get calls route to me.

You didn't have a problem with those mandates, but now you have a problem when we amend them? Revise them? Cancel them?

I mean, if you think laws and regulations should never be changed if private parties will somehow be affected, I'll mark you down in the box of "how liberals like to sometimes improperly characterize conservatives". Uhm, that makes you your own cartoon.

Not to make it all personal or nuthin, its all in fun. But you see what I'm saying here? Why is this telco mandate not ok, when all the other telco ones were? They all relate to someone or other who wants to talk, er, enage in speech.

Hello

I've never been a particularly big fan of heavy regulation. Yes, many liberals are, but not me. I like to know there is a problem to solve before I solve it.

And here, what is the problem? That you must answer the phone or the door? Come on! It's one of the petty annoyances of being an American, like having protesters occassionally slow traffic.

Hank had earlier said that this wasn't a Republican or Democratic issue, and I believe that is true of most free speech issues. They become free speech issues requiring the court to step in because they involve unpopular causes, from the Klan to Communists, that no one is willing to stand up for.

[sgtclub]

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?

Isn't there more than just the right to free speech implicated here? That is, isn't the right of free speech coming up against the right to privacy? And why should the right of commercial speech outweigh the right of privacy? This, to me, sounds like a time/place/manner restriction more than anything else.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Watchtower

Hank had earlier said that this wasn't a Republican or Democratic issue, and I believe that is true of most free speech issues. They become free speech issues requiring the court to step in because they involve unpopular causes, from the Klan to Communists, that no one is willing to stand up for.

and that is exactly true. Free speech may be the only coincidence of interests of the ACLU and reel conservatives.

As for the regulation, I'm sure most of us generally agree. Unfortunately, there probably is not nearly another similarly efficient way to enable the natural monopolies.

Ironically, we would't even have that internet you tried to distinguish without the telcos which have been regulated to death. But, as long as the natural monopolies are there, and are regulated, why not just put the entire burden on them?

Come to think of it, I like this idea more than fining the alleged spammers. Why not just enable/require the telcos to offer choices, broad and narrow?

Just like the MSN 8 filters, I'd love to just have a list of people who could reach my home number.

Hello

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Atta II? Uhm, sure, if he emails us 4 times and tells us what he is going to do! And if the putty is fake! FWIW, I'd feel more strongly about my position if the box cutters were sans-blades but, at best, it was just recklessness.

face it. you are a racist. he's white and in college so he shouldn't go to jail. you'd feel "more strongly about" your position if he hadn't actually had a blade? well, that shows growth, I suppose, but still, at least on this you are one stunted mug.

advocating my position on CNN

smile- no comment necessary.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
face it. you are a racist. he's white and in college so he shouldn't go to jail. [...] still, at least on this you are one stunted mug.

Ahh yes Rufus, thats an, uhm, convincing argument. Getting less cartoonish by the moment, no?

[Fade out Fat Albert themesong]




Hello

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahh yes Rufus, thats an, uhm, convincing argument. Getting less cartoonish by the moment, no?

[Fade out Fat Albert themesong]




Hello

your point: a guy can smuggle a boxcutter on an airplane, not to hijack the palne, just to make a point. you say its okay, in part because he sent an email to a huge Federal Department, warning it that it should tell another Federal Department to be on the lookout for him.

I ask: what if an al Queda guy gets caught trying to smuggle them on, and says, "just testing"

your point: that's cartoonish. the al Queda guy didn't email the one federal department to advise it to warn the other Federal Department.

me: move for directed verdict please on the question of who's cartoonish.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
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

OK, let's pretend this is just about contractual rights. If so, you don't need a Do Not Call Registry. But the reason we have a Do Not Call Registry is that contracts are failing us, in at least two ways. (1) Before we have the chance to decline the telemarketer's contractual offer to us, we have already been annoyed during dinner. (2) The phone companies have not offered us an option of contracting out of such calls. (Maybe this is because of government regulation; I don't know.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Isn't there more than just the right to free speech implicated here? That is, isn't the right of free speech coming up against the right to privacy? And why should the right of commercial speech outweigh the right of privacy? This, to me, sounds like a time/place/manner restriction more than anything else.

(1) Are you referring to penumbras?

(2) Since some messages are permitted at all times, and other messages are not, and the difference is their content, this does not sound like a time/place/manner restrition to me.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
your point: a guy can smuggle a boxcutter on an airplane, not to hijack the palne, just to make a point. you say its okay, in part because he sent an email to a huge Federal Department, warning it that it should tell another Federal Department to be on the lookout for him.

I ask: what if an al Queda guy gets caught trying to smuggle them on, and says, "just testing"

your point: that's cartoonish. the al Queda guy didn't email the one federal department to advise it to warn the other Federal Department.

me: move for directed verdict please on the question of who's cartoonish.

My point: You have rephrased every statement I've written on the subject so that you can attack the "point" you say I'm trying to make.

I didn't say its "okay". I said, its not as serious as someone actually committing a violent act with the box cutters, or intending to attempt to commit a violent act with the box cutters. In fact, its more akin to a "reckless" act, for which people are often not sent to prison.

You remember, the "intent" word, right? You'd be surprised how often that shows up in trials for things like murder, hijacking and most of the other serious criminal acts. Never heard of it? Oh, that must be why you missed it before!

Which is how we get to the earlier use of the word "reckless".

Arghh (note to self), who am I lecturing?

But thanks for bringing up the race subject there. I'm just appalled at my behavior now that you've pointed it out. Thanks mista rufus, i sho is thankfull yous poynted mes to tha era of my wayz!

Hello