Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Celebrates After Court Strikes Down Obama-Era Robocall Rule (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Federal judges have struck down an anti-robocall rule, saying that the Federal Communications Commission improperly treated every American who owns a smartphone as a potential robocaller. The FCC won't be appealing the court decision, as Chairman Ajit Pai opposed the rule changes when they were implemented by the commission's then-Democratic majority in 2015. Pai issued a statement praising the judges for the decision Friday, calling the now-vacated rule "yet another example of the prior FCC's disregard for the law and regulatory overreach." The FCC's 2015 decision said that a device meets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) definition of an "autodialer" if it can be modified to make robocalls, even if the smartphone user hasn't actually downloaded an autodialing app. That interpretation treats all smartphones as autodialers because any smartphone has the capability of downloading an autodialing app, judges ruled. Since any call made by an autodialer could violate anti-robocall rules, this led to a troubling conclusion: judges said that an unwanted call from a smartphone could violate anti-robocall rules even if the smartphone user hasn't downloaded an autodialing app.
"The Commission's understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act's coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a unanimous ruling Friday. The ruling came in a case filed against the FCC by the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, which says it represents "third-party collection agencies, law firms, asset buying companies, creditors, and vendor affiliates." Judges also invalidated an FCC rule that helped protect consumers from robocalls to reassigned phone numbers.
"The Commission's understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act's coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a unanimous ruling Friday. The ruling came in a case filed against the FCC by the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, which says it represents "third-party collection agencies, law firms, asset buying companies, creditors, and vendor affiliates." Judges also invalidated an FCC rule that helped protect consumers from robocalls to reassigned phone numbers.
But I for one am happy I can't be hit with robocall fines and prosecution for simply dialing the wrong number.
So we can give him a few robocalls.
Look, I'm no fan of Pai, but on its face, this ruling looks reasonable. From TFS, I gather that until now, a smartphone could be considered an autodialer even if it was not configured to be one. Now, if I read this correctly, you have to install autodialing software on your phone for it to be considered an autodialer.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I started not liking him as soon as he was appointed. I've since moved on to outright loathing. Anyone have his phone number?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Why isn't it considered trespassing when someone uses my property to sell me something or to deliver a political spiel?
Lets be honest, any laws against robo-dialers wasn't working or couldn't being enforced anyway. Any call I get from a number that's not in my contacts goes straight to voicemail, which is then translated into a text message. In fact, I rarely get a phone call from someone in my contacts as most personal interaction has moved to text messages.
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I believe the HHGTTG summed it up best:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy defines the Federal Communications Commission as “a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,” with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the Federal Communications Commission as “a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.”
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Someone kill this fucking asshole.
Remember how popular the Do Not Call list implementation was when it was first implemented? When a technical glitch in the way the legislation was written threatened to delay implementation of the law, Congress took the unusual step of convening on a Sunday, as it did after Pearl Harbor, to make a fix and pass it.
For several years, Do Not Call gave the public blessed relief from junk solicitations - until the robocalls started, a new tech that Do Not Call was unable to address. Since then we have been desperately trying to do something, legally or technically, about robocalls.
If today's decision brings an even bigger flood of robocalls into the homes of Trump's base, it will very quickly no longer be Trump's base.
If today's decision brings an even bigger flood of robocalls into the homes of Trump's base, it will very quickly no longer be Trump's base.
Do you believe that Trump supporters will connect an event in reality with Trump? Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything, no matter how unlikely.
Do you disagree with Obama that made the decision to appoint him to the FCC? You should revisit your position against Obama.
Obama had no choice but to appoint Pai to the FCC board. A Republican seat was open. The Republicans nominated Pai.
It was Trump who appointed Pai to the chair of that board. I think it's that appointment that the GP was talking about.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So federal rules are good if they reflect one side of US politics?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sorry for self-replying. TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It is reasonable to say that the law has a problem. In the normal scheme of things, we would wait for somebody to actually try to sue someone else for calling them from a smartphone, and let the courts decide the scope that the law should be applied through case law. But as we are under the current regime, if it is a consumer protection law, it needs to be ripped up completely, with no replacement.
Do you disagree with Obama that made the decision to appoint him to the FCC?
If what you say is true then I like Obama and dislike Pai. What was your point even supposed to be? That's just a stupid non-argument , I don't even think you're a real person but your shit logic was just so bad
You should revisit your position against Obama.
This English is so clunky.
Why does the FCC have Republican seats? The working parts of the government should not be concerned with party affiliation, they should be about getting on and doing their job, taking directions from the elected representatives - leave the party partisanship to those we can vote out every 4 years.
We're supposed to believe that the ruling reduced robocalls? And that they might pick up in volume?
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but robocalls from spoofed numbers have been out of control for years. Neither this rule, nor any other rules are doing anything about them.
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?
If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right.
I never imagined I would be defending an action of that right-wing-asshole sock puppet Pai, but any overly broad interpretation of a law allowing reasonable and proper activities to be prosecuted at the whim of some random official is a threat to liberty and the rule of law. E.g., the confiscation. without due process, of monies/properties suspected by whatever random backwoods sheriff to be the result of drug activity.
My understanding is that the FCC rule in question presumed that anybody using a cellphone was guilty of making robocalls until the accused proved that he wasn't. This is in direct contradiction of The Presumption of Innocence, one of the cornerstones of American law. IANAL, but I can't see how any case based on it would possibly hold up in court. Now, if the rule required there to be autodialing software on the phone, that would be different.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Many robo calls are using arbitrary numbers now. They can do that if they have a particular type of service. I know this for sure because I have received calls from myself!
Then again, I guess it wasn't my smart phone that really initiated the call.
How about if we institute the death penalty for anybody that calls using a spoofed caller ID? Robocallers I can blacklist if they are honest about what number they are calling from!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Making it political is the only way to ensure people like Pai get in there. Otherwise you run the risk of things like 'scientists' or old IT professionals being appointed because of disgusting left-wing things like "experience working with these things" or "not owned by the industry he's supposed to regulate". These are hideously uncorrupt ideas and they will not stand with any industry.
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes since your post suggests you're more into trying to score cheap partisan points rather than actually understanding the issues, but one of the primary issues with overbroad laws with harsh penalties and one of the primary reasons courts strike them down (you realize this was a federal district court decision, not the FCC, right?) is the chilling effect they have on legitimate behavior.
Using smaller words, when the FCC states an intent to levy fines of $500 per "uninvited call" from a cell phone, a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first. The amount of explicit enforcement action says nothing about how many people simply forego behavior that everyone agrees should be lawful out of fear that they'll be one of the first examples.
Did you READ the article, or are you an illiterate millenial moron who's been "triggered"?
Seriously! WTF is wrong with you Trump haters? The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one (including YOU calling your mom/boyfriend/girlfriend etc at an inconvemient moment) into a criminal. And beacuase Trump's FCC guy opposed your beloved "net neutrality"
scam (also known as the "help Apple/Facebook/Netflix get richer at the expense of telcos" rule) and because you hate Trump, you decide that this cell phone move to resore sanity is in some way EVIL.
Personally, I am happy that I can use a smartphone safe in the knowledge that if I call somebody at a bad time (or dial a wrong number) and they're in a bad mood at the time, they cannot sick the FCC on me and get me classified as a criminal. Thanks, Ajit Pai!
There are plenty of ways to go after robo-callers, and the big evil telcos (who sell these people hundreds of phone lines to make those damnable calls, while telling congress they have NO WAY of knowing who is doing it) without trying to make any smartphone user into a potential recipient of a huge fine and a criminal record (which was the Obama scheme you apparently love - YOU must be a robo-dialing junk call kingpin).
TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.
Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers back in November. Crickets indeed.
you probably missed this part of Pai's statement:
Instead of sweeping into a regulatory dragnet the hundreds of millions of American consumers who place calls or send text messages from smartphones, the FCC should be targeting bad actors who bombard Americans with unlawful robocalls. That’s why I’m pleased today’s ruling does not impact (and, in fact, acknowledges) the current FCC’s efforts to combat illegal robocalls and spoofing. We will continue to pursue consumer-friendly policies on this issue, from reducing robocalls to reassigned numbers to call authentication to blocking illegal robocalls. And we’ll maintain our strong approach to enforcement against spoofers and scammers, including the over $200 million in fines that we proposed last year.
so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Sure there are. The FTC already regulates robocallers (and the Do Not Call list) separately from the FCC.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/f...
As much as I don’t like Pai, this ruling, at least on its face, isn’t necessarily the horrible thing it’s being made out to be, since the FTC has been providing better regulation on this issue for far longer, and has been enlisting technology companies to provide solutions to the issue as well.
the worst evil since slavery.
huh??
I don't even get robocalls. In a very recent election I got one from a local politician, just talking at me no manners, no greeting, I promptly sent of an email letting them know the rudeness, the impropriety, it is not the politician who talks at me, I don't have to listen to me, I talk at the politician and it is the politician who has to listen to me, not only would I not vote for them but I would campaign against them. Robocall away and I will remember which to loathe and become active against, as suits my mood and humour at the time ie treat it with the contempt it deserves. Much like forced YouTube ads showing me products to hate and avoid, yes, nothing like a forced ad to sell me something, ohh do it again, a thousands times more and I will buy it a thousand times less, the idiot digital age. When you become exposed to less commercial they tend to become more offensive, been seen and not heard, do not interfere with my life, else be excluded from it, learn your fucking digital manners.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Because fuck the intent of the law. Intent has long been an important consideration in the courts, but not anymore when that gets in the way of your preferred outcome, which is not to upload established law and you can nitpick technical detail that aren't well-defined by non-technical lawmakers. Bizzarro America persists.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine). Companies that have legitimate reasons to call you want to use systems like this because they're a lot more efficient than having a human dial number after number trying to find people who are home/can pick up. The number of bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through and paper trail they have to retain just to make sure they're not exposing themselves to liability--simply because they're calling you, their established customer, but are using a system more efficient than a human punching digits on a phone--is dizzying.
... the current FCC’s efforts to combat illegal robocalls and spoofing.
I don't know the current legal definition of an illegal rebocall, but I know what it SHOULD be. ANY robocall placed without the recipient's prior and ongoing consent, should be punishable by a fine of $10K per call for the first offense, $50K per call for the second offense, and loss of corporate, charitable, or party status for the third offense. In short, with VERY FEW exceptions, (public safety, life-or-death, and the like), ALL robocalls should be illegal, and violations of the laws forbidding them ought to result in the harshest penalties. For that matter, these rules should also apply to the non-automated forms of telemarketing as well.
Of course, that will never happen, because we have government 'by the corporations, for the corporations'. That's what we get for allowing collectives to be treated as 'persons before the law'.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Whew. Way to go, FCC. Obviously this is a huge problem. Huge. The courts must be packed with heinous cell phone users who have been arrested for violating this law. Does anyone have any numbers of how many people have been convicted and fined the $500 for this? Or gone to trial? Maybe arrested? Hello? Anyone? Come on. The DC Circuit US C of A has a solid, real-life, blood & guts example:
. Errrr.
Ok. So Mr Pai is diligently saving all Americans from a fate worse than ponies. IANAL, but the 2015 regulation does sound ill considered, although maybe their hearts were in the right place. In any case, Pai now has an excellent opportunity to restore respectability to his name, salvage his legacy, and drag his reputation back from Antenora in the Ninth Circle. He could enact regulations that will protect Americans from those pesky India-based telephone scammers. Surely he is working on it at this very moment.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Because he isn't challenging a ruling that blocks you from being made liable to be fined for robocalling every time you dialled a wrong number on your smartphone?
Trump derangement syndrome really does make people say the weirdest things.
You seem to be reading quite a bit into what I said. I neither said the FCC’s rules were bad nor suggested there was a problem with them, so feel free to keep using ad hominem to attack that straw man you built out of things I never said.
Rather, I pointed out that the GP was factually incorrect about their central claim and then went on to suggest that the FCC’s rules were more or less redundant on account of existing regulations already being successfully enforced.
Would I prefer that the rules stayed in place? Yes! Having multiple avenues for defense of consumers is rarely a bad thing. Even so, I don’t see the loss of these rules as a “the sky is falling!” sort of scenario that others seem to be painting it as. I prefer to reserve my moral outrage for the situations that actually warrant it.
>a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first
And you know what? I'm fine with that.
I don't care if someone really wishes I were their customer. I don't want ANY uninvited calls. Chilling effect? Bring it the fuck on.
There are a large number of people who assume that any set of federal rules are bad by the mere fact that they are rules coming from the federal government. At the moment several of those people hold important positions of power in the US.
Stupid regulations. I am not a libertarian and I am all for government regulation. It's just the government regulation is an extremely complicated domain of technology. I wish that instead of fighting for votes of imbecile constituents bright minds from both parties were thinking together on how to regulate the unfathomable complexity of modern economy better.
And this particular one is an example of that.
Government regulation needs to be applied quickly in reaction to ever-going fight with the entropy of greed. You should not need to wait for the next election to raise or drop the taxes on a particular item by couple of percentage points. It should be done automatically by government computers.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
and I was not disappointed! Plenty of people did not read article and bashed Pai for endorsing a good decision. Because 'bad' people can never do 'good' things.
I would LOVE to have included ANY phone. That way NO business could call me unless there has been a call from me to them (or there is a prior connection of up to one year).
There is no reason any company, be they small or large, to call me, un less I call them first.
Next there must be a difference between marketing calls and other calls and I should be able to not want marketing calls, but still the other calls. While I am at it, they also should not be allowed to sell my information to others to call me.
Oh wait. I have all that living in Belgium, Europe. I must be a communist.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I got a call from one of my potential general-election opponents like that, although he was nice. He rambled a lot about how the Government killed his wife and stuff about Vietnam. I think he's going to lose to William T. Newton.
Newton is insane, which is dangerous: he can actually win if not taken seriously. He came within a few hundred votes of beating long-standing Republican candidate Corrogan Vaughn in the 2016 primary. Difficulty: Newton was a write-in candidate.
My district is solidly Democratic, but that doesn't mean winning the Primary nets me this Congressional seat this year. Look at Lamb winning a R+11 district--the first in history: the strongest Republican district held by a Democrat has been R+9. I think Lamb's district might just be leaning Democratic, and we'll see it get re-indexed as the voter distribution starts to show R+6 or so.
I worry that a wildcard like Newton could actually activate the Republican voting base, and if the General candidate doesn't get out to drive the Democratic base--my opponent historically has taken it easy and is kind of in poor health this year to boot--then we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves when we lose it. I'm putting myself in the line of fire by running, but I have a job to do.
Fortunately, I seem to energize any crowd I speak to. My Web site sucks but let's be honest: putting up a nice looking Web page and relaxing in front of your computer doesn't engage your constituents.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff. The stuff Trump swept aside when he came in; the stuff Obama got to right away.
You have a party in Congress? You get to vote. There are a bunch of Democrats, a bunch of Republicans, a bunch of Independents, and that one Green? Hoo boy, those Independents. What would we ever do with a House Majority of Independents? Speaker of the frigging House there's no party leadership!
USDA: Democrat, Republican, Green, or long list of all the Independents. Instant Run-off Voting.
FCC Chair: Same, IRV.
FCC Board? Single Transferable Vote. Start numbering them. Caveat: We're appointing FIVE commissioners. Two parties? You still get ONE vote. I've modified the STV protocol for this: when a Party (not an individual) wins a seat, their excess votes transfer directly to an additional Party seat: if Democrats get 50% of the votes as Rank 1, then they get D1=20%, D2=20%, D3=10%. If D3 loses, those votes move to the second-vote, and so forth, as in usual STV. If your Vote is on an Independent, that individual's excess votes follow usual STV procedures.
The same with SCOTUS appointments, in batches: Party-Independent modified STV.
When all is done and said, the Democratic leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; Republican leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; and any Independents who win the vote do their own appointments. Maybe you get 3 and 2 seats, or Judges, or whatever.
The best part? We can batch up an election. You can vote separately for each appointment for which we apply this system; however, if you want, you can just write one ranking for the entire set of appointments, and apply that same ranking to any subset of those appointments--the same ballot is used as STV or IRV for each set of appointments being carried out. You don't need to fill out 8 or 10 or 12 ballots to vote on who you want making these appointments if your answers are going to be the same on all (or most) of them (if one deviates, you can alter that one ballot and use your template ballot for all others).
No, I'm not running Judges and Commissioners as candidates. I'm just trying to limit the domestic power of the President. We should not have half our representatives in one party, half in the other, and a President who lines up the courts, the labor relations board, the FCC, the USDA, and everything else with his party because he narrowly edged out 49.999% of the American People who bothered to cast a vote in a huge popularity contest.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Did I miss something about a party? I said no such thing.
Yes, apparently you did: the headline.
The headline said "Ajit Pai Celebrates". No celebration was mentioned in the article.
We're wiping out Republicans in deep red states.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine).
I think you have it backwards. Autodialers that connect you to a human when you pick up were the 20th century way of doing spam calls. The 21st century way to do it is to have no humans involved at all.
The higher-quality robots even have some ability to respond to what you say.
Robots are taking our jobs, even the below-minimum-wage spam caller jobs.
Theres nothing wrong with socialism you walnut, google socialist democracy and see how many of us in that list are ranked above the USA on the happiness index.
Uh huh. Feel free to provide links, AC. Thanks.
Does this mean we can robocall the absolute shit out of Ajit and the FCC?
Not a big fan of reading TFS/TFA, huh?
Can't fucking wait to attack and spew vitriol and hate, can you?
Nothing has been done that makes robocalling legal. It just means you can't be prosecuted for dialing a wrong number on your smartphone.
See, before this if Trump or Pai wanted to have your as thrown in prison because you posted something that pissed them off, they could have your phone records examined for any mis-dialed calls and use that to throw your SJW ass in with your new cellmate/boyfriend.
I think you're angry because you were looking forward to being the 'catcher' for some nasty as fuck prison buttsex.
Ummm, it was the LAW which was ruled on here. It was the FCC regulation INTERPRETING the law. The law of which the regulation was an implementation is still in place. Violating that law is still a criminal offense.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The rule was an interpretation of an existing law...that law is still on the books.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Meh.
If a number isn't in my Contacts, it gets ignored.
If they don't leave a message, it gets blocked.
If it's an automated message, it gets blocked.
If I can't find the number in Google, it gets blocked.
It doesn't take much time or effort.
To clarify, blocked means it goes directly to VM and I don't even know they called. If you have long VM instructions, they typically don't even bother to leave a message or it fucks with their automated systems.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Forget small businesses, this could have been used to fine individuals for calling their township supervisors to complain about a vote they made.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Your approach mostly works on cellular, but the Trump base has landlines.
This one was totally useless in defeating robocallers like so many other government regulations that are simply feel-good, do-something-NOW, vote-getters.
That's what we get for allowing collectives to be treated as 'persons before the law'.
So tell us, how would you fix that problem, without getting rid of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? I am all for limiting the rights of corps like Apple, Ford, and Coke, but it needs to be done in such a way that the First Amendment rights of the NRA, the EFF, and even PETA are not trampled. Regardless of how many of the second 3 you support (I figure most /.ers will support at least 1), you cannot deny that they are fundamentally different from the first 3 that I mentioned (and are fundamentally similar to each other).
I suggest Corporations not be allowed to make any campaign contributions of any kind.
emt 377 emt 4
Because that's the way the law regarding the FCC is written. Only three members may be from the same political party.
And yet you gracefully allow the removal of yet another consumer protection law.
It was not a consumer-protection law. It was a single anti-consumer section inside a consumer protection law, which itself still stands.
But someone mentioned that douchebag Ajit Pai and everyone freaks out and suddenly discussion is over.
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff.
We already do. It's called the Presidential Election.
You have it backwards, it is narrow abd contrived interpretations that are a threat to the rule of law.
No, the law should always be interpreted narrowly.
For example, a backcountry sheriff that insists he did right by putting some troublesome outsiders in jail for disturbing the peace.
That's an overbroad interpretation of disturbing the peace, not a narrow one.
Narrow vs broad interpretation also has nothing to do with with whether something should be enforced or prosecuted.
All this, and i still don't like the asshole. :)
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Is this why I've gotten three "we have a warrant for your arrest" robocalls in the past twenty-four hours? Same recording, but each is from a different state. and I'm not American.
If so, please respond with them so we can call him.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
That's not a proportional representative. Just over 50% of the votes go to one person who then fills multiple seats with his own people. Why, when half of the votes say D and the other half say R, should six Supreme Court judges all be selected from the pool of political philosophy representing only one set of these voters? Why should it not be half and half? If it's 2/3 and 1/3, why not 4 of one and 2 of the other?
Why don't we do away with Congress and just make the President our glorious leader dictator?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I have also read an article that also discusses about robocall's laws at https://www.lemberglaw.com/wha.... The law is good and yeah, I really agree that these robocalls are very very annoying, but I agree that most of the FCC's rules are outdated and need to be updated.