The Bill of Rights refers to people, not corporations. A corporation is not a person. They have no Free Speech rights. None whatsoever.
Sigh. Hate to break to to you, but suck though it may, Corporations have had all the Constitutional protections of a human being since about 1890.
The constitution itself does not address the matter directly either way. Subsequent Supreme Court precedents have defined the Bill of Rights as extending to Corporations - being legally viewed as a collective of People. This has held true for over a century, and will continue to hold true, until the Surpreme Court issues a decision which counteracts this previous ruling.
Please do not call people idiots if you're so unfamiliar as to the workings of precedents within our legal system.
You are sadly mistaken and, were it not for your pompous attitude, I would take the time to point you to the appropriate precedents to demonstrate how confused you really are.
Unfortunately, you are a total assmunch, and you don't deserve the enlightenment you so desperately need.
Translation: ARGH! You have offended my deep-set belief system that bears little in relation to reality! I would attempt to prove you wrong, but I have no working knowledge of the situation! Therefore, I will put on airs of superiority, while simultaneously NOT producing an argument in favor of my beliefs, while throwing up a smokescreen of childish name-calling.
Here's a hint. I was not pompous UNTIL NOW. Unless you are suggesting attempting to defend American Rights, even unpopular ones, is itself a pompous act. If so, we're all in deep trouble.
YAY! Citation! Intelligent injection into this debate!
(note: legitimate happiness. Intelligent debate makes Jay proud.)
Unfortunately, the context of that paragraph renders the quote somewhat moot. From the opening lines:
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Title III of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 645, 39 U.S.C. 4009 ( 1964 ed., Supp. IV), under which a person may require that a mailer remove his name from its mailing lists and stop all future mailings to the householder.
Good cite, this was the case that established that you can force a mail-order company (and through interpretation, ALL forms of advertisers) directly to stop contacting you.
I have no disagreement with that. Sprint calls me up, I tell them not to call back, they have to abide.
Trust me, I have no objections whatsoever to forcing spammers to provide a working opt-out clause. That is completely in line with all other regulation of bulk advertising in any form.
What I object to, and for which I have not seen any precedent, is the idea that you can *pre-emptively* restrict the Free Speech rights of *an entire group* just on your say-so. Which is where the difference between this citation and the current situation lies. And what, ultimately, SCOTUS will have to rule on.
My personal feelings on the matter is that is giving each citizen too much power to restrict the speech of another entity. But, as I pointed out in another post, I have full respect for the Surpreme Court's, well, supremacy. If they say I'm wrong, then so be it. But until then, I feel I must defend Freedom of Speech as being paramount, and most sacrosanct, of all our rights.
First Ammendment also does not give you the right to commit fraud.
Agreed. And spam e-mail is not exempt from anti-fraud laws. Which is why laws requiring valid e-mail addresses, accurate contact information, and a working opt-out button would cause no Constitutional quandary. Those are, in themselves, fraudulent practices, and making them illegal will, in turn, lead to larger frauds (selling defective \ quack products) being detected and stopped.
Okay, that was a good response. (ironic, no offense, coming from an A.C. Get an account, you should have one.) And you hit upon the central legal issue which, I have no doubt, SCOTUS is going to be soon forced to rule upon. (which, I will add, they have studiusly avoided ruling on previously.)
The central question is this: How much power does each citizen have to restrict speech directed towards them? Like, as someone else quoted, the old saw about, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." At what point does the advertisers' right to swing their fist of advertising end?
I state at the outset - I have utmost faith in our Supreme Court. I have my beliefs as to the nature of the law, but they outweigh me by a few orders of collected experience. If they say I'm wrong, then I fully respect that as a new precendent guiding the interpretation of the First Amendment.
As I see it, as a matter of principle, any action taken by a citizen to restrict the Freedoms of another citizen requires a high level of justification. Restraining orders, for example. To say person X no longer has the right to talk to me or come within 100 meters of me. This requires a full court hearing, with evidence presented (occasionally ex parte, but that's a wrinkle), with a judge passing verdict on whether or not the evidence displays a need to restrict that person's Freedoms of Speech and Mobility. There isn't even an ACTUAL Freedom of Mobility in the bill of rights, but it is still treated as a Freedom anyway. (and a good thing!)
The DNC List, again as I see it, is another form of restraining order. But, it's not a case where someone's life is in danger. No one is threatening them. There are multiple calls involved, which CAN constitute harassment (such as in restraining order cases), but there are provisions in the law already in place wherein you can order a person or a corporation to stop calling. In this case, the Corporation has less freedom than the human. I can order *you*, a person, to stop calling me, but ultimately it's unenforcible until a judge backs me up. A corporation has to take my word on the subject instantly.
BUT... The problem with the DNC List is that it's *pre-emptive.* Since the 1880s, in our country, Corporations are afforded basically the same Rights and Protections as an individual citizen. I could not get (only as an example) a restraining order preventing ALL JEWS from getting within 100 meters of me. Of course not, it's laughable. Likewise, I would never obtain an order that no Jew could ever call me. It's handled on a person-by-person basis. (note, not anti-semetic, just needed to pick some random group)
So under what justification can the reverse of that be true for corporations? There is, at this point, no legal precedent for saying "No corporation can contact me." It, again, is handled on a case by case basis.
And given the lack of precedent to the contrary, I therefore in the end, defer to the Constitution. The Corporations, being comprised of individual humans, SHOULD have the right to engage in free communication until I personally, one on one, tell them to stop.
The alternative, ultimately, gives each citizen too much individual power to restrict the freedoms of another protected entity.
And yes, if you can't guess, I *am* a fanatical defender of the First Amendment, for good or ill, and will fight, simply on general principle, any attempt to bend it further unless incontrovertable evidence of the need is shown to me. I see the need that yelling "fire" in a theatre should not be protected speech; I do not find that here.
And finally, just to end on a note of irony, this post was interrupted midway through by a call from a Telemarketer.
That is , you have the right to express yourself (via spam or any other medium of your choice) as long as I have the right to ignore you.
Then, I hope, you would agree with me in saying that a Good Spam / Bad Spam approach to this would be FAR more Constitutional, and would do much to dillute the problem without any unnecessary laws further regulating our speech, yes?
I'm not pro-spam, I'm pro-speech. We don't live in a completely "hands off" economy. There are consumer protection laws, companies are not allowed to advertise fraudulently or intentionally deceive customers. Offering unworking "opt-out" buttons or hiding behind faked addresses clearly violates this long-established (and necessary) principle. And, of course, selling non-working products is massively illegal.
Ergo, codify that such practices are deceptive and not acceptible in e-mail advertising. Go after the guys using such practices, no differently than we would someone selling quack pills on infomercials or using the postal service to distribute illegal pyramid schemes. Then, those companies that are actually willing to use spam in a 100% up-front manner, selling legitimate products, without making any attempt to hide or cover their identity, should have the full Right to do so. Surely, at that point with the clearly fraudulent cases weeded out, the Market will ultimately express its approval or disapproval of the process.
(note: Also not an objectivist, but do believe in theory that Smith's principles hold true in a fairly balanced economy.)
Do you work for the Direct Marketers Association, perchance?
No.
Now then, to the meat of the issue:
Pushing ads I did not ask for is not free speech.
PLEASE guide me to the area of enacted Federal law which establishes that. To the best of my knowledge:
-Door to door solicitation is legal, until you tell the person to get off your property.
-Direct "bulk" snail-mailings are legal, unless you order the company to stop mailing you.
-Telemarketing is legal, until you tell the company to stop calling. And I note for the record, the proposed DNC List restrictions are currently held up in Federal court for FIRST AMENDMENT review. Ergo, even our trained legal minds have not fully decided the Constitutionality of it.
I'm not seeing anything in here to suggest that, as of the current state of the laws, unwanted advertisements are anything BUT Free Speech until you order them to stop.
However, if you would like to counter this assertion with an argument that extends past the level of "sarcastic unsupported statement of belief," I will be more than happy to listen.
Otherwise, quit trying to restrict American FREE SPEECH just because you're a little inconvenienced. I happen to like my Freedoms they way they are, warts and all, thank you.
And let me just preface this by saying I'm not a spammer, I have never spammed, and I dislike the daily purging of my Hotmail box as much as anyone.
Now then, everyone knee-jerking with "KILL SPAMMERS!" "MAKE SPAM ILLEGAL!" take a step back and look at the situation logically for a moment, difficult that may be given what an emotional topic bulk commercial e-mail apparently is.
I'll work under the assumption that most people replying to this are American. We have, I'm sure you remember, a little thing called the Bill of Rights. The First entry on this list reads: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Any of you in other democracies, you probably have a similar clause. The Government is not allowed to restrict speech.
Now then, over the years, exceptions have been found. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded room is not protected speech. Urging an assembled mob to violence is not protected speech. Openly plotting to kill your leader is not protected speech. We accept these restrictions because the slight loss of Freedom is GREATLY outweighed because of the societal benefit. But we still accept ANY restriction grudgingly, and with hestation.
Does "because I have to click "DELETE" a few times" REALLY count as a justifable reason to restrict free speech, with open speech being THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT of any democracy? Hmm. Incite a mob to violence... killing the president... advertising herbal weight supplements. I'm just not seeing the progression there.
People are fond of quoting this one in civil rights articles, so I'll repeat it: "Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of freedom deserve neither." (Franklin) Are any of y'all SERIOUSLY arguing that FURTHER restrictions on the Freedom of Speech are actually justified in this case?
And if you're in doubt, let me outline the future scenario. Let's say, The People express their Will. Congress passes a law further restricting speech, banning all unsolicited commercial e-mail. Yay! Yay! Go us! No more spam, right? WRONG.
Making a profitable activity illegal DOES NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY. Some of the most serious societal blunders America has made have revolved around that false belief. (like Prohibiition) Spam makes money, sad but true. The Spammers aren't going to just quietly slink off into the night. They'll just relocate overseas, to where there are no restrictions. Suddenly, sure, you've got no bulk e-mail coming from within the United States - but you've got even more pouring in from China, Taiwan, South America, and any other country without anti-spam laws.
Further, it would be a country with no fair business regulations either. Want a working "opt out" link? Forget it. Valid return address? Never. ANY legal recourse against the spammers? Not a chance.
And thus, in short, you will have sacrificed your Liberty in return for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Corporate entities do not constitue persons, and therefore are not entitled to any "rights" per se. Do a quick google on "corporate personhood" for more info on the issue.
Just to let you know, I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post after that. Stick your head in the ground if you like, it sucks, but Corporations ARE afforded all rights of personhood, and have since the late 1800s. And there are innumerable Supreme Court cases backing this up.
Trying to claim otherwise based on strict wording of the original laws, in complete disregard to over a century of court precedents, merely displays ignorance of the workings of our system.
think they have some mysterious "right" to (ab)use their intended recipient's E-mail boxes.
Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top.
I hate spammers too, I really do, but which is worse - a few more junk mails, or yet another restriction set up on our supposedly unrestricted speech? One which, I would add, would simply cause spamming to move overseas entirely and continued undeterred - while we still have a bit less freedom in the name of accomplishing nothing.
Think carefully before firing off the knee-jerk flame, thanks.
Well, the Oscars have NEVER been fair. We all know, the closer a movie comes out to Oscar time, the better the chances it has. Any movie released from around Jan to April, no matter how terrific, has virtually no chance of winning an Oscar because it'll be forgotten by the time ballots come out, DVD or not. (yes, I know there are a few exceptions, but on the whole early-year releases are the awards graveyard)
And, of course, the ultimate thing to declare from all this is that piracy CANNOT be prevented. All it takes is one copy leaking out. Which is why it would be wiser, on the whole, to look at dealing with the problem under the assumption that a movie WILL leak, rather than going to great lengths on the unlikely attempt to stop it from ever leaking.
But if more movies are distributed unlawfully, the major studios will invest in production of fewer movies, which means fewer "involvements" for the crew.
Five words: Do you ACTUALLY believe that?
The worst this would accomplish is that studios might stop blowing $200 million on $5 scripts in hopes of tricking the people into seeing them through a ($50 mil) ad campaign.
Simple economics. If there is something out there hurting your profit margin, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, you find ways to lower your production costs. I'll give you a hint as to what's NOT a major aspect of those costs - all of the blue-collar guys are a TINY FRACTION of what the movie costs. You could probably hire every Grip and Rigger in Hollywood at Union scale and still not equal a Tom Cruise payday.
It could, in fact, produce the opposite effect. H'wood quits making so many unjustifiably huge wannabe summer blockbusters, and uses the money to produce MORE mid-budget films. (you assume you're going to lose X% of your profits to piracy. Whatever X is, the smaller the budget on the film, the easier it is, overall, to turn a profit. Ergo, the huge films are hurt FAR more by piracy than the mid- to low-budget ones. Conclusion: quit making $200mil pictures (at least half of which are guaranteed to lost money, often in the tens of millions), focus more on films which can more easily turn a profit.)
But, of course, it would be naughty to point out that market pressures can lead to greater overall productivity, wouldn't it?
Being able to stick "200X ACADEMY AWARD WINNER!" on your DVD package moves too many units for any studio to do ANYTHING to handicap themselves in the Awards race. The MPAA might push for this. The studios might even "agree." But they'll get the screeners out anyway. Paranoia will rule the day - no one will actually expect anyone else to abide by the agreement, so they'll all break it.
It's foolish that they're even TALKING about this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this means the movie industry's own people are the ones bootlegging movies. "If the people who make the movies are putting them out there, then how's it wrong for me to download?" (rhetorical, exampliary question) Bad, bad, BAD move.
I don't think that's something that can really be decided until Revolutions is out. People close to the film have sworn it really does answer all the big questions left over from Reloaded. We'll just have to wait and see.
And for that matter, it's not like a film HAS to simply have a single meaningful plot to be good. My all-time favorite anime is Serial Experiments Lain, and it could be argued it doesn't have a plot at all. (IE, it's entirely about asking interesting questions)
Blame the FEDERAL government. Do you know the REAL reason most of the states are in such dire financial shape? Because every single Homeland Security mandate is entirely UNFUNDED.
You know how we all snickered when the Terrorist Rainbo-meter kept going up and down like a Yo-Yo? Every time it went into Orange, that was millions more spent by the state every day in complying with the Federal demands. (depending a lot, obviously, on the size of the state. Here in Texas we got borked by this but hard since we have loads of cities, the 3rd biggest Int'l Airport in the country, and a HUGE foreign border)
So, at the same time Bush was making such a big deal about Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts! WHEEEE!, he was virtually guaranteeing that the States would be forced to raise THEIR taxes to compensate. And, needless to say, of all that money he's asked for lately to send over to Iraq, not a penny goes to the states, where the ACTUAL Homeland Security is being performed.
And, of course, failure to comply with a Federal Mandate, even unfunded, means risking losing even more Federal money. (for things like highway repair)
So, intentional or not, the situation has been set up where the States are the ones getting screwed at both ends. Either they let themselves go completely bankrupt, or they are forced to implement policies which any rational economist would find horrifying in a recession. (and all of y'all complaining about government being a "work program," full of jobs that can be cut, please explain to me how laying off more workers when there's already rising unemployment is a good idea)
Maybe this will get passed, maybe not. The states are utterly screwed either way. But if you want to get angry, get angry at the Feds.
I'm not sure we ever see the real world in the trailer. I know there was a lot of speculation that, "Zion" is still inside the Matrix, with Neo and Smith trapped in the actual real world. However, I think that giant shockwave we see when they start fighting belies that.
I wonder how many normal people know that the woman who played the Oracle is dead. Since it happened at about the same time as Aaliyah, it got completely overshadowed.
Other shots I'm wondering about:
Blind Neo having all of the light beams flowing into him.
Neo walking down that neon-orange tubey corridor.
The person in the chair exploding in Matrix code with three people around him.
You missed on #4 - Neo has LOST his eyes. In one of the shots you can clearly see a lot of blood beneath the bandage. I went back and step-by-stepped to be certain - there's just no other explanation.
That's VERY cool and Campbellian and prophetic. (Norse mythology, Dune . ..)
BTW, I disagree on point 5. If Smith WAS so powerful as to be a threat to the machines, why would they EVER turn down Neo's offer to stop him when it meant they'd be free to wipe out Zion while he was off playing games with Smith? Seems like a win-win deal for them.
And notice how we keep hearing "The Oracle's" Voice (not actually, but really close) but don't see her? But we even see her apartment? I'm REALLY curious how that's gonna work.
They argue that the number of sales they get, even to people who assume they don't like telemarketing, shows the value of what they offer. In other words, they say that people don't realize that they don't really mind telemarketing all that much.
Except that's just the PR line. If the people in charge of the company actually BELIEVE it then, well, see my original point.:-)
If the Do-Not Call list goes into effect, then that will essentially be the Last Word on the subject. By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers. And, reversely, if you do NOT sign up, you are implicitly inviting them.
Now then, two points:
Number one, running a call center takes a LOT of money. The job is so odious that you can't pay minimum wage, you have to pay well above the standard wage for what is, otherwise, not a terribly difficult job. Plus overhead, huge phone bills, etc.
EVERY BAD NUMBER wastes money. A lot. We've seen those things about how you can screw TMs over by leaving the phone off the hook, etc. So, first of all, this would be a boon for the industry since it would weed out everyone they know would never, ever buy something over the phone. Far less wasted money in calling "Not Interesteds."
And, number two. Going with what I wrote at the top, you assume that any number NOT on the list is up for grabs. You then hire some market consultants and make God's own targetted marketing base. Every citizen not on that list, you start running background checks, sales figures, anything you can get at publically, and start fine-tuning your pitch to target those people specifically instead of taking the shotgun approach.
It would take a little setting up, but the end result would be a huge leap in actual sales, and less money wasted in worthless calls.
So, all this really just gives me even LESS pity for the DMA than I previously didn't have. Just like the RIAA, they're attempting to use the government and the court system to block a "scary" change to their business model, which would actually be a boon if they'd just open their eyes.
No, the way I see it is that, to compensate for the lack of "real people" in a system, you'd want to attract people who had a vested interest in seeing the economic system work. The idea isn't to test the system under the worst conditions, but rather the best. See which ones do even moderately well.
Also, there's something else to adjust for - the majority of gamers would be pro-Capitalistic Americans, which REALLY skews the results. If the economic system wasn't known beforehand, the Capitalists would just band together in every world and start shifting it that direction regardless of the starting point. And the point isn't to see whether Capitalism can take over any economic system - we already know that.
Plus, since immigration would be allowable, there's not really any reason not to tell people beforehand.
Heh, that'll never happen. Utopia will never exist.
HOWEVER, you're close to the mark. What could happen is economic think tanks should start sponsoring MMORPGs. Set them up with an established social\economic structure, then let the characters run loose in the world to see how it fares "in reality." (I realize it's not REALLY reality, but it is far, far closer than has ever been remotely possible in economics before.)
Publicize the game, make sure people know before hand what sort of world is being set up. This should, in theory, attract those people who have an interest in that style of economics. There will always be choads, but the majority of people gaming should stick to the worlds with rules that best suit their idea of what a society should be.
Or, now that I think about it, even better - run several games using the same basic "world" simultaneously, but with the different structures. You're allowed to "immigrate" from one world to another (you realize Objectivism isn't for you after all and decide to give Communism a shot), but absolutely *not* to run multiple characters. This would be a permanent banning offense, since it would completely skew the study. (this would allow them to test not only which countries are most profitable, but which attract the most citizens)
It wouldn't be a perfect test, to be sure. The fact that it requires a fairly high level of computer knowledge would skew the results considerably from a strict statistical point of view. However, this is the first time in history that economists can actually *experiment*. We might actually be able to rip a lot of the dogmatic ideology away from economics, put the theories to *practical* test (without risking millions of real lives) and then have a huge slew of data to draw from in application to the real world.
And then, of course, if God had a sense of humor we'd discover that Marx was right all along.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The constitution itself does not address the matter directly either way. Subsequent Supreme Court precedents have defined the Bill of Rights as extending to Corporations - being legally viewed as a collective of People. This has held true for over a century, and will continue to hold true, until the Surpreme Court issues a decision which counteracts this previous ruling.
Please do not call people idiots if you're so unfamiliar as to the workings of precedents within our legal system.
You are sadly mistaken and, were it not for your pompous attitude, I would take the time to point you to the appropriate precedents to demonstrate how confused you really are. Unfortunately, you are a total assmunch, and you don't deserve the enlightenment you so desperately need. Translation: ARGH! You have offended my deep-set belief system that bears little in relation to reality! I would attempt to prove you wrong, but I have no working knowledge of the situation! Therefore, I will put on airs of superiority, while simultaneously NOT producing an argument in favor of my beliefs, while throwing up a smokescreen of childish name-calling.
Here's a hint. I was not pompous UNTIL NOW. Unless you are suggesting attempting to defend American Rights, even unpopular ones, is itself a pompous act. If so, we're all in deep trouble.
Telemarketers, so far, have the right to use your phone, which is your private property, in making sales calls.
Bulk-mailers similarly have the right to use your mailbox, which is sort of your property (legally considered as such anyway), in mailing ads.
Door-to-doors can make use of your house in delivering their spiel.
If all of those are protected - up until the point you order the person\corporation to stop using your property, why is Spam not?
(note: legitimate happiness. Intelligent debate makes Jay proud.)
Unfortunately, the context of that paragraph renders the quote somewhat moot. From the opening lines:
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Title III of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 645, 39 U.S.C. 4009 ( 1964 ed., Supp. IV), under which a person may require that a mailer remove his name from its mailing lists and stop all future mailings to the householder.
Good cite, this was the case that established that you can force a mail-order company (and through interpretation, ALL forms of advertisers) directly to stop contacting you.
I have no disagreement with that. Sprint calls me up, I tell them not to call back, they have to abide.
Trust me, I have no objections whatsoever to forcing spammers to provide a working opt-out clause. That is completely in line with all other regulation of bulk advertising in any form.
What I object to, and for which I have not seen any precedent, is the idea that you can *pre-emptively* restrict the Free Speech rights of *an entire group* just on your say-so. Which is where the difference between this citation and the current situation lies. And what, ultimately, SCOTUS will have to rule on.
My personal feelings on the matter is that is giving each citizen too much power to restrict the speech of another entity. But, as I pointed out in another post, I have full respect for the Surpreme Court's, well, supremacy. If they say I'm wrong, then so be it. But until then, I feel I must defend Freedom of Speech as being paramount, and most sacrosanct, of all our rights.
First Ammendment also does not give you the right to commit fraud. Agreed. And spam e-mail is not exempt from anti-fraud laws. Which is why laws requiring valid e-mail addresses, accurate contact information, and a working opt-out button would cause no Constitutional quandary. Those are, in themselves, fraudulent practices, and making them illegal will, in turn, lead to larger frauds (selling defective \ quack products) being detected and stopped.
The central question is this: How much power does each citizen have to restrict speech directed towards them? Like, as someone else quoted, the old saw about, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." At what point does the advertisers' right to swing their fist of advertising end?
I state at the outset - I have utmost faith in our Supreme Court. I have my beliefs as to the nature of the law, but they outweigh me by a few orders of collected experience. If they say I'm wrong, then I fully respect that as a new precendent guiding the interpretation of the First Amendment.
As I see it, as a matter of principle, any action taken by a citizen to restrict the Freedoms of another citizen requires a high level of justification. Restraining orders, for example. To say person X no longer has the right to talk to me or come within 100 meters of me. This requires a full court hearing, with evidence presented (occasionally ex parte, but that's a wrinkle), with a judge passing verdict on whether or not the evidence displays a need to restrict that person's Freedoms of Speech and Mobility. There isn't even an ACTUAL Freedom of Mobility in the bill of rights, but it is still treated as a Freedom anyway. (and a good thing!)
The DNC List, again as I see it, is another form of restraining order. But, it's not a case where someone's life is in danger. No one is threatening them. There are multiple calls involved, which CAN constitute harassment (such as in restraining order cases), but there are provisions in the law already in place wherein you can order a person or a corporation to stop calling. In this case, the Corporation has less freedom than the human. I can order *you*, a person, to stop calling me, but ultimately it's unenforcible until a judge backs me up. A corporation has to take my word on the subject instantly.
BUT... The problem with the DNC List is that it's *pre-emptive.* Since the 1880s, in our country, Corporations are afforded basically the same Rights and Protections as an individual citizen. I could not get (only as an example) a restraining order preventing ALL JEWS from getting within 100 meters of me. Of course not, it's laughable. Likewise, I would never obtain an order that no Jew could ever call me. It's handled on a person-by-person basis. (note, not anti-semetic, just needed to pick some random group)
So under what justification can the reverse of that be true for corporations? There is, at this point, no legal precedent for saying "No corporation can contact me." It, again, is handled on a case by case basis.
And given the lack of precedent to the contrary, I therefore in the end, defer to the Constitution. The Corporations, being comprised of individual humans, SHOULD have the right to engage in free communication until I personally, one on one, tell them to stop.
The alternative, ultimately, gives each citizen too much individual power to restrict the freedoms of another protected entity.
And yes, if you can't guess, I *am* a fanatical defender of the First Amendment, for good or ill, and will fight, simply on general principle, any attempt to bend it further unless incontrovertable evidence of the need is shown to me. I see the need that yelling "fire" in a theatre should not be protected speech; I do not find that here.
And finally, just to end on a note of irony, this post was interrupted midway through by a call from a Telemarketer.
Then enlighten me. Preferrably with published articles by those legally trained, relevent higher court precedents, or direct citation of Federal law.
Then, I hope, you would agree with me in saying that a Good Spam / Bad Spam approach to this would be FAR more Constitutional, and would do much to dillute the problem without any unnecessary laws further regulating our speech, yes?
I'm not pro-spam, I'm pro-speech. We don't live in a completely "hands off" economy. There are consumer protection laws, companies are not allowed to advertise fraudulently or intentionally deceive customers. Offering unworking "opt-out" buttons or hiding behind faked addresses clearly violates this long-established (and necessary) principle. And, of course, selling non-working products is massively illegal.
Ergo, codify that such practices are deceptive and not acceptible in e-mail advertising. Go after the guys using such practices, no differently than we would someone selling quack pills on infomercials or using the postal service to distribute illegal pyramid schemes. Then, those companies that are actually willing to use spam in a 100% up-front manner, selling legitimate products, without making any attempt to hide or cover their identity, should have the full Right to do so. Surely, at that point with the clearly fraudulent cases weeded out, the Market will ultimately express its approval or disapproval of the process.
(note: Also not an objectivist, but do believe in theory that Smith's principles hold true in a fairly balanced economy.)
No.
Now then, to the meat of the issue: Pushing ads I did not ask for is not free speech.
PLEASE guide me to the area of enacted Federal law which establishes that. To the best of my knowledge:
-Door to door solicitation is legal, until you tell the person to get off your property.
-Direct "bulk" snail-mailings are legal, unless you order the company to stop mailing you.
-Telemarketing is legal, until you tell the company to stop calling. And I note for the record, the proposed DNC List restrictions are currently held up in Federal court for FIRST AMENDMENT review. Ergo, even our trained legal minds have not fully decided the Constitutionality of it.
I'm not seeing anything in here to suggest that, as of the current state of the laws, unwanted advertisements are anything BUT Free Speech until you order them to stop.
However, if you would like to counter this assertion with an argument that extends past the level of "sarcastic unsupported statement of belief," I will be more than happy to listen.
Otherwise, quit trying to restrict American FREE SPEECH just because you're a little inconvenienced. I happen to like my Freedoms they way they are, warts and all, thank you.
And let me just preface this by saying I'm not a spammer, I have never spammed, and I dislike the daily purging of my Hotmail box as much as anyone.
Now then, everyone knee-jerking with "KILL SPAMMERS!" "MAKE SPAM ILLEGAL!" take a step back and look at the situation logically for a moment, difficult that may be given what an emotional topic bulk commercial e-mail apparently is.
I'll work under the assumption that most people replying to this are American. We have, I'm sure you remember, a little thing called the Bill of Rights. The First entry on this list reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Any of you in other democracies, you probably have a similar clause. The Government is not allowed to restrict speech.
Now then, over the years, exceptions have been found. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded room is not protected speech. Urging an assembled mob to violence is not protected speech. Openly plotting to kill your leader is not protected speech. We accept these restrictions because the slight loss of Freedom is GREATLY outweighed because of the societal benefit. But we still accept ANY restriction grudgingly, and with hestation.
Does "because I have to click "DELETE" a few times" REALLY count as a justifable reason to restrict free speech, with open speech being THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT of any democracy? Hmm. Incite a mob to violence... killing the president... advertising herbal weight supplements. I'm just not seeing the progression there.
People are fond of quoting this one in civil rights articles, so I'll repeat it: "Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of freedom deserve neither." (Franklin) Are any of y'all SERIOUSLY arguing that FURTHER restrictions on the Freedom of Speech are actually justified in this case?
And if you're in doubt, let me outline the future scenario. Let's say, The People express their Will. Congress passes a law further restricting speech, banning all unsolicited commercial e-mail. Yay! Yay! Go us! No more spam, right? WRONG.
Making a profitable activity illegal DOES NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY. Some of the most serious societal blunders America has made have revolved around that false belief. (like Prohibiition) Spam makes money, sad but true. The Spammers aren't going to just quietly slink off into the night. They'll just relocate overseas, to where there are no restrictions. Suddenly, sure, you've got no bulk e-mail coming from within the United States - but you've got even more pouring in from China, Taiwan, South America, and any other country without anti-spam laws.
Further, it would be a country with no fair business regulations either. Want a working "opt out" link? Forget it. Valid return address? Never. ANY legal recourse against the spammers? Not a chance.
And thus, in short, you will have sacrificed your Liberty in return for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
So, I ask you, is THAT the American way?
Just to let you know, I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post after that. Stick your head in the ground if you like, it sucks, but Corporations ARE afforded all rights of personhood, and have since the late 1800s. And there are innumerable Supreme Court cases backing this up.
Trying to claim otherwise based on strict wording of the original laws, in complete disregard to over a century of court precedents, merely displays ignorance of the workings of our system.
Any businessman who throws away profit needlessly is a fool who does not deserve profit.
Any businessman who uses any advantage he can find to lower his business expenses will see greater profit.
If you're going to hate, come up with a decent reason. Posts like that do nothing to enhance your intellectual standing.
Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top.
I hate spammers too, I really do, but which is worse - a few more junk mails, or yet another restriction set up on our supposedly unrestricted speech? One which, I would add, would simply cause spamming to move overseas entirely and continued undeterred - while we still have a bit less freedom in the name of accomplishing nothing.
Think carefully before firing off the knee-jerk flame, thanks.
And, of course, the ultimate thing to declare from all this is that piracy CANNOT be prevented. All it takes is one copy leaking out. Which is why it would be wiser, on the whole, to look at dealing with the problem under the assumption that a movie WILL leak, rather than going to great lengths on the unlikely attempt to stop it from ever leaking.
Five words: Do you ACTUALLY believe that?
The worst this would accomplish is that studios might stop blowing $200 million on $5 scripts in hopes of tricking the people into seeing them through a ($50 mil) ad campaign.
Simple economics. If there is something out there hurting your profit margin, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, you find ways to lower your production costs. I'll give you a hint as to what's NOT a major aspect of those costs - all of the blue-collar guys are a TINY FRACTION of what the movie costs. You could probably hire every Grip and Rigger in Hollywood at Union scale and still not equal a Tom Cruise payday.
It could, in fact, produce the opposite effect. H'wood quits making so many unjustifiably huge wannabe summer blockbusters, and uses the money to produce MORE mid-budget films. (you assume you're going to lose X% of your profits to piracy. Whatever X is, the smaller the budget on the film, the easier it is, overall, to turn a profit. Ergo, the huge films are hurt FAR more by piracy than the mid- to low-budget ones. Conclusion: quit making $200mil pictures (at least half of which are guaranteed to lost money, often in the tens of millions), focus more on films which can more easily turn a profit.)
But, of course, it would be naughty to point out that market pressures can lead to greater overall productivity, wouldn't it?
It's foolish that they're even TALKING about this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this means the movie industry's own people are the ones bootlegging movies. "If the people who make the movies are putting them out there, then how's it wrong for me to download?" (rhetorical, exampliary question) Bad, bad, BAD move.
And for that matter, it's not like a film HAS to simply have a single meaningful plot to be good. My all-time favorite anime is Serial Experiments Lain, and it could be argued it doesn't have a plot at all. (IE, it's entirely about asking interesting questions)
Oh wow, good call. You've got better eyes than me. :-)
You know how we all snickered when the Terrorist Rainbo-meter kept going up and down like a Yo-Yo? Every time it went into Orange, that was millions more spent by the state every day in complying with the Federal demands. (depending a lot, obviously, on the size of the state. Here in Texas we got borked by this but hard since we have loads of cities, the 3rd biggest Int'l Airport in the country, and a HUGE foreign border)
So, at the same time Bush was making such a big deal about Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts! WHEEEE!, he was virtually guaranteeing that the States would be forced to raise THEIR taxes to compensate. And, needless to say, of all that money he's asked for lately to send over to Iraq, not a penny goes to the states, where the ACTUAL Homeland Security is being performed.
And, of course, failure to comply with a Federal Mandate, even unfunded, means risking losing even more Federal money. (for things like highway repair)
So, intentional or not, the situation has been set up where the States are the ones getting screwed at both ends. Either they let themselves go completely bankrupt, or they are forced to implement policies which any rational economist would find horrifying in a recession. (and all of y'all complaining about government being a "work program," full of jobs that can be cut, please explain to me how laying off more workers when there's already rising unemployment is a good idea)
Maybe this will get passed, maybe not. The states are utterly screwed either way. But if you want to get angry, get angry at the Feds.
I wonder how many normal people know that the woman who played the Oracle is dead. Since it happened at about the same time as Aaliyah, it got completely overshadowed.
Other shots I'm wondering about: Blind Neo having all of the light beams flowing into him.
Neo walking down that neon-orange tubey corridor.
The person in the chair exploding in Matrix code with three people around him.
You missed on #4 - Neo has LOST his eyes. In one of the shots you can clearly see a lot of blood beneath the bandage. I went back and step-by-stepped to be certain - there's just no other explanation. That's VERY cool and Campbellian and prophetic. (Norse mythology, Dune . . .)
BTW, I disagree on point 5. If Smith WAS so powerful as to be a threat to the machines, why would they EVER turn down Neo's offer to stop him when it meant they'd be free to wipe out Zion while he was off playing games with Smith? Seems like a win-win deal for them.
And notice how we keep hearing "The Oracle's" Voice (not actually, but really close) but don't see her? But we even see her apartment? I'm REALLY curious how that's gonna work.
They argue that the number of sales they get, even to people who assume they don't like telemarketing, shows the value of what they offer. In other words, they say that people don't realize that they don't really mind telemarketing all that much. Except that's just the PR line. If the people in charge of the company actually BELIEVE it then, well, see my original point. :-)
Hold on, hear me out.
If the Do-Not Call list goes into effect, then that will essentially be the Last Word on the subject. By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers. And, reversely, if you do NOT sign up, you are implicitly inviting them.
Now then, two points:
Number one, running a call center takes a LOT of money. The job is so odious that you can't pay minimum wage, you have to pay well above the standard wage for what is, otherwise, not a terribly difficult job. Plus overhead, huge phone bills, etc.
EVERY BAD NUMBER wastes money. A lot. We've seen those things about how you can screw TMs over by leaving the phone off the hook, etc. So, first of all, this would be a boon for the industry since it would weed out everyone they know would never, ever buy something over the phone. Far less wasted money in calling "Not Interesteds."
And, number two. Going with what I wrote at the top, you assume that any number NOT on the list is up for grabs. You then hire some market consultants and make God's own targetted marketing base. Every citizen not on that list, you start running background checks, sales figures, anything you can get at publically, and start fine-tuning your pitch to target those people specifically instead of taking the shotgun approach.
It would take a little setting up, but the end result would be a huge leap in actual sales, and less money wasted in worthless calls.
So, all this really just gives me even LESS pity for the DMA than I previously didn't have. Just like the RIAA, they're attempting to use the government and the court system to block a "scary" change to their business model, which would actually be a boon if they'd just open their eyes.
Such businesses do not deserve to exist.
Also, there's something else to adjust for - the majority of gamers would be pro-Capitalistic Americans, which REALLY skews the results. If the economic system wasn't known beforehand, the Capitalists would just band together in every world and start shifting it that direction regardless of the starting point. And the point isn't to see whether Capitalism can take over any economic system - we already know that.
Plus, since immigration would be allowable, there's not really any reason not to tell people beforehand.
HOWEVER, you're close to the mark. What could happen is economic think tanks should start sponsoring MMORPGs. Set them up with an established social\economic structure, then let the characters run loose in the world to see how it fares "in reality." (I realize it's not REALLY reality, but it is far, far closer than has ever been remotely possible in economics before.)
Publicize the game, make sure people know before hand what sort of world is being set up. This should, in theory, attract those people who have an interest in that style of economics. There will always be choads, but the majority of people gaming should stick to the worlds with rules that best suit their idea of what a society should be.
Or, now that I think about it, even better - run several games using the same basic "world" simultaneously, but with the different structures. You're allowed to "immigrate" from one world to another (you realize Objectivism isn't for you after all and decide to give Communism a shot), but absolutely *not* to run multiple characters. This would be a permanent banning offense, since it would completely skew the study. (this would allow them to test not only which countries are most profitable, but which attract the most citizens)
It wouldn't be a perfect test, to be sure. The fact that it requires a fairly high level of computer knowledge would skew the results considerably from a strict statistical point of view. However, this is the first time in history that economists can actually *experiment*. We might actually be able to rip a lot of the dogmatic ideology away from economics, put the theories to *practical* test (without risking millions of real lives) and then have a huge slew of data to draw from in application to the real world.
And then, of course, if God had a sense of humor we'd discover that Marx was right all along. ;-)