Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules Political Robocalls Are Protected By First Amendment (onthewire.io)

Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed. The decision came in a case in Arkansas, where political robocalls had been illegal for more than 30 years. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Leon Holmes ruled that banning political robocalls amounts to an infringement of free speech protections and also constitutes prior restraint of speech. Political campaigns have been using robocalls for decades, and some states have sought to ban them, arguing that they are intrusive and violate recipients' privacy. In the Arkansas case, the state attorney general put forward both of these arguments, and also argued that the calls can tie up phone lines, making them unusable in an emergency. Holmes said in his decision that there was no evidence that political robocalls prevent emergency communications, and also said that the Arkansas statute should have banned all robocalls, not just commercial and political ones. "The statute at issue here imposes a content-based restriction on speech; it is not one of the rare cases that survives strict scrutiny. The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest," Holmes wrote.

7 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. This raises a good question by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean that robots are protected under the U.S. Constitution?

    Can they vote for the candidate they are calling for?

  2. Judges and logic, always a riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd require that those robocalls be done by humans for it to count as "free speech". If we go by this judge's ruling, then, hey, putting a tape recorder on the assembly floor would be an acceptable fillibuster strategy, no?

  3. Free speech != right to be heard by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Free speech is not the right to blast your message into someones bedroom at four in the morning. It is also not the right to break into your house and talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner. And it is also, therefore, not the right to break into your house electronically (using a phone) to talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner.

  4. Re:You have the right to speak but... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.

    Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)

    Time to close those loopholes.

  5. Let's Call Him by terbeaux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tell him how you feel: 501-604-5380 US District Judge J. Leon Holmes 500 West Capitol Avenue, Room D469 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-604-5380 Courtroom 4D Staff Information Law Clerks: Nicole Swisher, Lauren Summerhill Courtroom Deputy: 501-604-5384

  6. Re:Autodialers by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny how autodailers were illegal when...

    But that is exactly what the judge is pointing out. The judge is quite correct here, it is a simple matter and the law is invalid on its face.

    If they banned ALL unsolicited autodialers -- which many states do -- then it is constitutional. Prohibiting the activity for everyone is proper.

    By banning ONLY political autodialers it becomes a limitation on a specific type of speech. Limiting only a group of people or a specific type of speech is generally improper.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  7. Re:Huh? by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote

    Sure, but let's not pretend that Trump was the friend of the Republican establishment and that they didn't want him taken down.

    The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media.

    Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact. I have grave doubts that the DNC really managed to do much of anything -- certainly nothing on the level of Ron Paul getting screwed in 2012. The fact is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Sorry, "Democratic Socialist," and more Democrats are more interested in a "mainstream" candidate than a socialist. Bernie Sanders had an extremely hard road uphill, and once Clinton got to the South (where few people like Bernie), it was over.