Indeed. But the netowrk is owned by the telcos and regulated by the feds. You pay for access. Without the outside network your telephone (which you do own)and the wiring in your house (also yours) are useless.
If I constantly called someone, or arranged to have a number of people call someone many times per day, that would be harassment.
Yes it would. However, telemarketers are calling you on behalf of many individual clients and therefore it is not harrassment. If everyone in america were to decide to call you once a day, this would not be harrassment because each person is only trying to reach you one time Similarly if numerous companies want to contact you once, it is not harrassment (no matter how annoying it is).
BTW I don't think the framers of the Constitution intended the 1st amendment to be used to protect people who use your own property to annoy you at dinner time.
The publicly swtiched telephone network is not your property. Telemarketers pay telephone companies for access to the network so that they can contact other users of the network (i.e. you). The telemarketer's speech is (or should be) protected by the first amendment. If you don't like getting calls, stop paying for phone service..
I do NOT agree with the court, but from a judicial stand point I think he's looking at the legality of one agency imposing rules that is not it's job.
I agree with the DNC List, but the judge is probably right that it should have come out of the FCC.
I know the government sucks when it comes to effiency but hopefully the FCC can just pick up and run with the FTC's program.
I'm not at all sure that the FCC has the jurisdiction to make this decision. The FCC has a mandate to regulate telecommunications by radio television, wire, satellite and cable. In order to accomplish this they maintain broadcasting and telecommunications divisions. On the broadcasting side of things the FCC has full jurisdiction to decide what type of content is or is not appropriate for broadcast. However, I don't think that the same applies for the content of telephone communications.
The FCC is more concerned with encouraging fair and reasonable pricing of and access to telecommunications networks. The content of communications along these lines is not the FCCs concern. Telemarketing is really an annoying (and in many cases, fraudulent) business practice. The regulation of industries (including the suppression of annoying, fraudulent and illegal business prctices) is part of the mandate of the FTC.
Injustices exist because of the actions of evil men, not because some people are poor and other people are rich.
Nope, you are incorrect. That wasn't much of an argument but I will still respond. Injustice is inherent in society where some people have wealth and power while others do not. Those who do not have power will do whatever is necessary to obtain wealth and power. This can result in the torture and murder of political dissidents, "human rights" abuses and so on. Those who have power and wealth will do what is necessary to maintain it. Leaders of wealthy, powerful societies may need to exercise capital punishment, "illegal imprisonment" and so on in order to control their own society. Those same people might conduct warfare against countires who do not have as much wealth in order to keep them in their place...Some people might say that such people are "Evil Men" but that is over simplifying the situation.
The point is that amnesty international has no effect on this situation. They dupe the gullible into handing over truckloads of money which is largely wasted ion "administration"...
Until you identify the problem correctly, you will never be able to see the solution.
There is not a "problem" that can be "solved" by a bunch of wealthy folks with good intentions. This is how the world works and it is unlikely to change.
The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race.
Actually there are many reasons to discredit the whole organization. While I'm sure that most people who donate to Amnesty International really do believe that they are "making a difference" by "improving living conditions for the human race", the reality is quite different. Like any non-governmental organization the prime goal of AI is to raise money in order to pay the salaries of the numerous bureaucrats who work for them. Self-preservation is the number one goal.
The "socially concious" among us will donate to AI in a fit of altruism (political science students who are part of the "anti-globalization" movement are particularly bad for this) or out of guilt (people who see the starving children/mistreated political prisoners on the TV and are compelled to give). AI will use a large percentage of this money for administration (salaries, rent, phone bills, etc) and whatever is left will be used to "take action".
The truth is that AI is not and cannot be very effective. The injustices, the violations of human rights, will continue as long as there is inequality among societies. Unfortuneately there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to live the "western lifestyle". In order to make things equal citizens of western countries would need to accept a siginificant decrease in quality of life. I am not willing to accept this (and I'm sure many others are with me). The inequalities in the world are bound to continue to exist as long as people are struggling to increase their quality of life. They will exist despite the candlelight vigils, "formal complaints" and "political action" of AI.
I cannot justify donating to an organization so they can pay large salaries to a bloated bureaucracy that is fighting a losing battle against the inevitable injustices in the world.
There's nothing wrong with being a Christian; you can feel free to believe whatever you want. The problem arises when Christianity stops being a personal belief system and becomes politicized.
I'm sure nobody would care if all Christians would just mind their own business and not try to force their beliefs on others. I for one am tired of the "street preaching" of the more fundamentalist sects (Mormons, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, the Fire of God church and so on...).
The "religious right" political movement which lobbies government in order to further an ultra-conservative agenda is another reason why some people think there is something wrong with Christians.
Personally, I think that a religious faith based on self-denial in order for future reward (in the afterlife - when I'm dead) is just unappealing. Christian doctrine encourages the denial of some of the greatest aspects of the human experience. And that just sucks.
Moreover, it is not the content of the message that is the issue, it is the method of delivery that is being regulated. I cannot stand by your window with a bullhorn and shout my (otherwise protected) political opinions if you do not want me to; it is prefectly legal to restrict the way a message is presented.
The difficulty is that my window is not part of a communications system. I did not purchase my window with the expectation that it would be used as a means of communication. Thus, any attempt to use it as such can be considered harassment.
However, I do susbscribe to an email service with the expectation that I will send and receive messages to and from any other user of the system. Because the email system is global, this leaves me open to the reception of many, many messages. The problem is not with how the message is presented, but with the content.
While the volume of messages sent may be annoying/costly, it seems clear that people would not be complaining if every message they received was wanted or "valid". It is the content that people want to see restricted as people are generally annoyed at the content of unwanted messages. They don't want penis pills, porn passwords and the like.
In the US, the 1st ammendment doesn't protect commercial speech and so it is at least constitutionally acceptable to pass spam laws. In other countries (Canada, for example) commercial speech is protected and such laws restricting content don't stand a chance.
I thought "The Wind Wanker" was kind of funny. And to be fair, this is news about video games, not political afairs. If you are looking for dead-serious, thought-provoking commentaries you need to look to areas other than video game journalism (whose readers generally appreciate a little immature, childish name-calling).
- it's my phone and I'm paying for the service. With that in mind it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I get to decide who gets to call. If I tell someone to fuck off, then they better damn well fuck off.
That's just wrong. You don't seem to understand the concept of the phone system. The phone is yours. You pay for the service. The service allows any other subscriber to this service to contact you. Likewise you can contact any other subscriber to the service. This is not at your discretion despite what you may think.
- it's my email and my internet access. I get to decide to can send me mail using the services *I* pay for. In a capitalist society this is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Only a communist motherfucker would insist that I give everyone equal time on *my* dime.
Once again you fail to understand. You pay for email service. This service allows you to send and receive messages. The content and sender of the messages is restricted only to others who subscribe to the service.
- it's my mailbox and it's my postal service. The postal service does not belong to spammers, nor do I have any recognizable alternative to said post office. One would think, given no alternatives other than the government agency that I supposedly control as a citizen of the United States, I could dictate an end to spam. Funny, I can't.
The postal service does not belong to you either. Its the same as above, you pay for the service. This service allows you to send and receive messages. That is all. It does not mean that you can send and receive messages to/from only a specific group of people. You cannot dictate an end to spam because it is a legitimate business. The freedom of commercial speech should not be restricted just because it annoys you personally.
Well, in this case you would need to decide if answering your "important" calls is as important as not getting fragged in your game of tactical ops. I figure most people would just answer the phone and not worry about the frag but that's really your choice...
I agree that telemarketers can be complete assholes. But, you can just hang up on them once you say "No Thanks". There is no need to listen to their pathetic attempts to keep you on the line.
What's so hard about answering the phone, saying "No, Thanks" to a telemarketer, and then hanging up? It takes approximately 10 seconds. If you can't accept that people will use these services for commercial purposes then maybe you shouldn't be using them. If you do stop using them then you will never be bothered again, guaranteed.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
So we're agreed. Bulk advertising is not wrong while fraud is wrong.
I just don't understand while people (not necessarily you) want to enact specific anti-spam legislation. There are already laws against fraud, we just need to enforce them.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Having just read what I posted I think I need to clarify. It is not wrong to email anonymously. It is wrong to delibrately conceal your identity for the purposes of harrassment (sp?) (by not letting you contact them in order to be placed on a "do not eamil" list). Also, disregard the extraneous "story" at the end of the post. I should use the preview button.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Your claim I was refuting was that when a spammer puts mail in my inbox that this ME using a service I paid for. No. It's the spammer using a service I paid for. If you disagree, then kindly publish your e-mail address and I'll see to it that you use the remainder of your inbox. (No, I don't really plan to do that.)
When you receive mail in your inbox you are using the service that you are paying for. The content of the messsages you receive is irrelevant. What the spammer is doing is not and should not be considered illegal. (as long as they are not sending mail anonymously which is wrong). You may consider what they are doing immoral and unethical but that is a different thing entirely. story.
Do you know what irony is?
I think that you are trying to say that you were using sarcasm. However this is likely just a sad attempt to cover up your Matrix-loving fanboy tendencies.
I think maybe you've been watching your The Matrix DVD a little too much
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
What's so different about it?
You pay for your own mailbox. You pay for your own hard drive space which stores your INBOX. Your mailbox can be filled to capacity making it impossible to put other mail in it.
Yes, that is true but it is not illegal to fill your mailbox with legitimate, bulk advertising (filling it with popcorn would be vandalism). The high volume of email advertising doesn't make it illegitimate, you simply need a bigger mailbox (or you can stop using the postal system). Many advertisers drop leaflets into mailboxes without using the postal service; I'd like to see someone try to shut that industry down. People need to accepted the reality of email advertising and get on with their lives. It's as simple as that.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Attempt at humor? 'cause that's not the same thing at all. This community is supposed to support fundamental freedoms, freedom of speech for example, and be wary of any legislation that restricts such freedom. Restricting freedom of speech because some whiny people find it annoying is not a very smart thing to do IMO.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but I'm not the one using the service - the spammer is. He's using MY service for HIS needs and I'm not getting compensation. If you think this isn't the case, then can I please know where you live so I can park my car in your driveway.
The difference is that a driveway is personal property whereas yuor email service is a means of public communication. Maybe you need to rethink what YOUR service does. It provides you with a means to send/receive communications. The advertiser pays for this same service on his end. If you really don't like the messages you are receiveng then maybe you should stop paying for the service. It makes more sense than restricting the freedom of commercial speech.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Last time I checked, I had no oblighation to pay to receive advertising; I had no right to force others to pay the cost of carrying that advertising; I had no right to force others to put up with the deluge of complaints about that advertising.
You have already agreed to pay for your internet/email service and consequently any messages you send/receive (through connection time etc.). Advertising is bound to occur over any communications medium, email is not excepted. If you don't like paying for the communication service, then stop using it.
Its the same for those who whine about incurring the costs of fax advertising (they claim that they shouldn't have to pay for the paper/toner used to print ads). Sorry, but that's just the cost of using the service.
Slashdot Mirror
But my telephone is my property.
Indeed. But the netowrk is owned by the telcos and regulated by the feds. You pay for access. Without the outside network your telephone (which you do own)and the wiring in your house (also yours) are useless.
If I constantly called someone, or arranged to have a number of people call someone many times per day, that would be harassment.
Yes it would. However, telemarketers are calling you on behalf of many individual clients and therefore it is not harrassment. If everyone in america were to decide to call you once a day, this would not be harrassment because each person is only trying to reach you one time Similarly if numerous companies want to contact you once, it is not harrassment (no matter how annoying it is).
BTW I don't think the framers of the Constitution intended the 1st amendment to be used to protect people who use your own property to annoy you at dinner time.
The publicly swtiched telephone network is not your property. Telemarketers pay telephone companies for access to the network so that they can contact other users of the network (i.e. you). The telemarketer's speech is (or should be) protected by the first amendment. If you don't like getting calls, stop paying for phone service..
The right decision? How can FIFTY FREAKIN' MILLION votes for this thing be wrong?
Umm...the popularity of a decision doesn't necessarily make it correct. Take the war on Iraq for example...
I do NOT agree with the court, but from a judicial stand point I think he's looking at the legality of one agency imposing rules that is not it's job.
I agree with the DNC List, but the judge is probably right that it should have come out of the FCC.
I know the government sucks when it comes to effiency but hopefully the FCC can just pick up and run with the FTC's program.
I'm not at all sure that the FCC has the jurisdiction to make this decision. The FCC has a mandate to regulate telecommunications by radio television, wire, satellite and cable. In order to accomplish this they maintain broadcasting and telecommunications divisions. On the broadcasting side of things the FCC has full jurisdiction to decide what type of content is or is not appropriate for broadcast. However, I don't think that the same applies for the content of telephone communications.
The FCC is more concerned with encouraging fair and reasonable pricing of and access to telecommunications networks. The content of communications along these lines is not the FCCs concern. Telemarketing is really an annoying (and in many cases, fraudulent) business practice. The regulation of industries (including the suppression of annoying, fraudulent and illegal business prctices) is part of the mandate of the FTC.
Injustices exist because of the actions of evil men, not because some people are poor and other people are rich.
Nope, you are incorrect. That wasn't much of an argument but I will still respond. Injustice is inherent in society where some people have wealth and power while others do not. Those who do not have power will do whatever is necessary to obtain wealth and power. This can result in the torture and murder of political dissidents, "human rights" abuses and so on. Those who have power and wealth will do what is necessary to maintain it. Leaders of wealthy, powerful societies may need to exercise capital punishment, "illegal imprisonment" and so on in order to control their own society. Those same people might conduct warfare against countires who do not have as much wealth in order to keep them in their place...Some people might say that such people are "Evil Men" but that is over simplifying the situation.
The point is that amnesty international has no effect on this situation. They dupe the gullible into handing over truckloads of money which is largely wasted ion "administration"...
Until you identify the problem correctly, you will never be able to see the solution.
There is not a "problem" that can be "solved" by a bunch of wealthy folks with good intentions. This is how the world works and it is unlikely to change.
The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race.
Actually there are many reasons to discredit the whole organization. While I'm sure that most people who donate to Amnesty International really do believe that they are "making a difference" by "improving living conditions for the human race", the reality is quite different. Like any non-governmental organization the prime goal of AI is to raise money in order to pay the salaries of the numerous bureaucrats who work for them. Self-preservation is the number one goal.
The "socially concious" among us will donate to AI in a fit of altruism (political science students who are part of the "anti-globalization" movement are particularly bad for this) or out of guilt (people who see the starving children/mistreated political prisoners on the TV and are compelled to give). AI will use a large percentage of this money for administration (salaries, rent, phone bills, etc) and whatever is left will be used to "take action".
The truth is that AI is not and cannot be very effective. The injustices, the violations of human rights, will continue as long as there is inequality among societies. Unfortuneately there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to live the "western lifestyle". In order to make things equal citizens of western countries would need to accept a siginificant decrease in quality of life. I am not willing to accept this (and I'm sure many others are with me). The inequalities in the world are bound to continue to exist as long as people are struggling to increase their quality of life. They will exist despite the candlelight vigils, "formal complaints" and "political action" of AI.
I cannot justify donating to an organization so they can pay large salaries to a bloated bureaucracy that is fighting a losing battle against the inevitable injustices in the world.
There's nothing wrong with being a Christian; you can feel free to believe whatever you want. The problem arises when Christianity stops being a personal belief system and becomes politicized.
I'm sure nobody would care if all Christians would just mind their own business and not try to force their beliefs on others. I for one am tired of the "street preaching" of the more fundamentalist sects (Mormons, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, the Fire of God church and so on...).
The "religious right" political movement which lobbies government in order to further an ultra-conservative agenda is another reason why some people think there is something wrong with Christians.
Personally, I think that a religious faith based on self-denial in order for future reward (in the afterlife - when I'm dead) is just unappealing. Christian doctrine encourages the denial of some of the greatest aspects of the human experience. And that just sucks.
Moreover, it is not the content of the message that is the issue, it is the method of delivery that is being regulated. I cannot stand by your window with a bullhorn and shout my (otherwise protected) political opinions if you do not want me to; it is prefectly legal to restrict the way a message is presented.
The difficulty is that my window is not part of a communications system. I did not purchase my window with the expectation that it would be used as a means of communication. Thus, any attempt to use it as such can be considered harassment.
However, I do susbscribe to an email service with the expectation that I will send and receive messages to and from any other user of the system. Because the email system is global, this leaves me open to the reception of many, many messages. The problem is not with how the message is presented, but with the content.
While the volume of messages sent may be annoying/costly, it seems clear that people would not be complaining if every message they received was wanted or "valid". It is the content that people want to see restricted as people are generally annoyed at the content of unwanted messages. They don't want penis pills, porn passwords and the like.
In the US, the 1st ammendment doesn't protect commercial speech and so it is at least constitutionally acceptable to pass spam laws. In other countries (Canada, for example) commercial speech is protected and such laws restricting content don't stand a chance.
I thought "The Wind Wanker" was kind of funny. And to be fair, this is news about video games, not political afairs. If you are looking for dead-serious, thought-provoking commentaries you need to look to areas other than video game journalism (whose readers generally appreciate a little immature, childish name-calling).
- it's my phone and I'm paying for the service. With that in mind it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I get to decide who gets to call. If I tell someone to fuck off, then they better damn well fuck off.
That's just wrong. You don't seem to understand the concept of the phone system. The phone is yours. You pay for the service. The service allows any other subscriber to this service to contact you. Likewise you can contact any other subscriber to the service. This is not at your discretion despite what you may think.
- it's my email and my internet access. I get to decide to can send me mail using the services *I* pay for. In a capitalist society this is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Only a communist motherfucker would insist that I give everyone equal time on *my* dime.
Once again you fail to understand. You pay for email service. This service allows you to send and receive messages. The content and sender of the messages is restricted only to others who subscribe to the service.
- it's my mailbox and it's my postal service. The postal service does not belong to spammers, nor do I have any recognizable alternative to said post office. One would think, given no alternatives other than the government agency that I supposedly control as a citizen of the United States, I could dictate an end to spam. Funny, I can't.
The postal service does not belong to you either. Its the same as above, you pay for the service. This service allows you to send and receive messages. That is all. It does not mean that you can send and receive messages to/from only a specific group of people.
You cannot dictate an end to spam because it is a legitimate business. The freedom of commercial speech should not be restricted just because it annoys you personally.
Well, in this case you would need to decide if answering your "important" calls is as important as not getting fragged in your game of tactical ops. I figure most people would just answer the phone and not worry about the frag but that's really your choice...
That's the spirit! Telemarketers can be an endless source of amusement if you feel like screwing with them...
I agree that telemarketers can be complete assholes. But, you can just hang up on them once you say "No Thanks". There is no need to listen to their pathetic attempts to keep you on the line.
What's so hard about answering the phone, saying "No, Thanks" to a telemarketer, and then hanging up? It takes approximately 10 seconds. If you can't accept that people will use these services for commercial purposes then maybe you shouldn't be using them. If you do stop using them then you will never be bothered again, guaranteed.
So we're agreed. Bulk advertising is not wrong while fraud is wrong.
I just don't understand while people (not necessarily you) want to enact specific anti-spam legislation. There are already laws against fraud, we just need to enforce them.
Having just read what I posted I think I need to clarify. It is not wrong to email anonymously. It is wrong to delibrately conceal your identity for the purposes of harrassment (sp?) (by not letting you contact them in order to be placed on a "do not eamil" list). Also, disregard the extraneous "story" at the end of the post. I should use the preview button.
Your claim I was refuting was that when a spammer puts mail in my inbox that this ME using a service I paid for. No. It's the spammer using a service I paid for. If you disagree, then kindly publish your e-mail address and I'll see to it that you use the remainder of your inbox. (No, I don't really plan to do that.)
When you receive mail in your inbox you are using the service that you are paying for. The content of the messsages you receive is irrelevant. What the spammer is doing is not and should not be considered illegal. (as long as they are not sending mail anonymously which is wrong). You may consider what they are doing immoral and unethical but that is a different thing entirely. story.
Actually that's not really sarcasm either (bleh, its early in the morning here) You are still a fanboy though.
Do you know what irony is? I think that you are trying to say that you were using sarcasm. However this is likely just a sad attempt to cover up your Matrix-loving fanboy tendencies.
...it's not surprising that some people have fixations bordering on anal retentive levels.
This sentence is not techinically correct. Fixations do not have levels.
I think maybe you've been watching your The Matrix DVD a little too much
What's so different about it? You pay for your own mailbox. You pay for your own hard drive space which stores your INBOX. Your mailbox can be filled to capacity making it impossible to put other mail in it.
Yes, that is true but it is not illegal to fill your mailbox with legitimate, bulk advertising (filling it with popcorn would be vandalism). The high volume of email advertising doesn't make it illegitimate, you simply need a bigger mailbox (or you can stop using the postal system). Many advertisers drop leaflets into mailboxes without using the postal service; I'd like to see someone try to shut that industry down.
People need to accepted the reality of email advertising and get on with their lives. It's as simple as that.
Attempt at humor? 'cause that's not the same thing at all. This community is supposed to support fundamental freedoms, freedom of speech for example, and be wary of any legislation that restricts such freedom. Restricting freedom of speech because some whiny people find it annoying is not a very smart thing to do IMO.
Sorry, but I'm not the one using the service - the spammer is. He's using MY service for HIS needs and I'm not getting compensation. If you think this isn't the case, then can I please know where you live so I can park my car in your driveway.
The difference is that a driveway is personal property whereas yuor email service is a means of public communication. Maybe you need to rethink what YOUR service does. It provides you with a means to send/receive communications. The advertiser pays for this same service on his end. If you really don't like the messages you are receiveng then maybe you should stop paying for the service. It makes more sense than restricting the freedom of commercial speech.
Last time I checked, I had no oblighation to pay to receive advertising; I had no right to force others to pay the cost of carrying that advertising; I had no right to force others to put up with the deluge of complaints about that advertising.
You have already agreed to pay for your internet/email service and consequently any messages you send/receive (through connection time etc.). Advertising is bound to occur over any communications medium, email is not excepted. If you don't like paying for the communication service, then stop using it.
Its the same for those who whine about incurring the costs of fax advertising (they claim that they shouldn't have to pay for the paper/toner used to print ads). Sorry, but that's just the cost of using the service.