The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the won?
This is another of your distinctions-without-a-difference.
Computers don’t genuinely want anything. They do as they are told. A DOS attack is an attempt to prevent anyone else from using the targeted service by flooding it so no one else can get in. This is the same thing this liberal group is trying to do. The Senator won’t do what they want, which is/was to oppose DeVos, so they are trying to prevent anyone else from requesting his services.
“Let’s flood his phone asking him why he doesn’t answer his phone” is stupid, as I mentioned.
IOKIADDI rarely surprises me.
Regards,
Shodan
Is there evidence of individual calling more than once a day? If that is the case, then those individuals may be harassing.
If it is just that there are large numbers of individuals that are wishing to make their voices heard, that’s not harassment at all, that’s petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
The fact that he has upset so many of his constituency is not their fault, but instead, is entirely on him. And now that he says that he doesn’t want to hear from his constituency, because they are disagreeing with him.
Kinda wondering what the Capitol Police would do about this … if the activist group is breaking no laws, then the police can’t do anything about it and this is an empty threat … if the activist group is breaking the law, then they should conform to the law or go sit in jail …
Ron Johnson carried the rural vote … maybe Wisconsin dairy farmers aren’t on-board with expanding cheese imports … and perhaps this activist group should expand their rhetoric beyond Madison city limits …
At some point organised action such as this becomes a protest.
That’s fine, but if the protest is an on going obstacle to the targeted person doing their job, and others - who might rightfully expect information or guidance from the person - from contacting them …
If he tells one group of citizens they can only petition him by mail and allows other citizens to petition him in person or by phone, there’s probably a 14th Amendment violation there too.
Who would be the protected class?
But you haven’t given us any information about this group. All you showed us was the letter from the Senator. How can we know who is in the right without knowing the details of what the group is doing?
Yes, things were more polite in the old days. Until someone wields a gutta-percha cane…
Whether the behaviour of the constituents rises to harassment we cannot know from the little info we’ve been given.
But one thing is certain, this IS bad optics. And iS garnering a lot of bad press. So I’m gonna say the protest was moderately successful even if they do have to desist.
Let’s imagine the most egregious case: A group of people has decided they are going to monopolize the phone lines. Phone lines are an excludable resource, after all. Only one person can be on them at a time, and there’s a limit to how much staff the representative has on hand to answer the phones.
So, immediately after being hung up on, they call again. What is the representative supposed to do in this case? Just not have functional telephones? What about all the other people who aren’t being dicks who also should have the right and ability to call their representative?
Now, is that the case here? I don’t know. But in my opinion there exists a volume of phone calls that is unreasonable.
[Proto-Trumpist]He used only a gutta-percha cane! If he really wanted to hurt him, he would have beat him with an iron cane.[/Proto-Trumpist]
Depends on why they were hung up on. If they were unable to get their grievance heard before being hung up upon, then they should call back, it is unreasonable for the government’s office to hand up on constituents before hearing their view. If they were heard, then if they call again the next day, that’s not harassment. I see plenty of people on this board encouraging people to call their representatives every day.
I think the case is that he has upset so many of the people in his district, that they are all calling.
It has been compared to a DOS attack. Now, a DOS attack has the exact same symptoms of what happens when a website gets a whole bunch of unexpected, but completely legitimate traffic (used to be known as the slashdot effect, don’t know if it has gotten an update in terminology).
Most of the time, I doubt that representatives have their phones tied up. I don’t know how many lines there are, but given that he has a couple hundred thousand voters in his district, if only a fraction of a percent of them decide to call because of his actions, that’s gonna tie everything up.
…the letter wasn’t sent to “the group.” It was sent to an individual constituent. (and maybe others.) I think that distinction is important enough to make a difference here. A case can be made for an individual to be engaging in harassing manner: and a cursory google shows that “cease and desist” letters asking people to stop making phone calls is not uncommon in the United States. (I am not a lawyer nor a constitutional expert)
Huh. That’s a good point. If it turns out that this one person was just calling the office dozens of times a day, I might change my mind. I’d kind of had it in my head that it was sent to the sort of organization that is becoming common now, that’s encouraging voters to call their officials on a daily basis.
Thanks for pointing that out!
The government is not allowed to deny equal protection to “any person within its jurisdiction”.
I agree that a person calling non-stop is harassing regardless of their intentions.
That said we now get into an area where a judge would have to draw a line and say, “This many times per day or per hour is too many!” At which point harassers will call precisely one less time than the law says and then get their buddy to do the same.
Not sure what you do about this. Maybe get a number for people to call, then turn off the ringer on that phone and stick it in a closet and use other lines for your business.
Because the same thing happened a lot of other places too. If it was just this one person being "DOS"ed by one group, then hell yes, they’re just being assholes. But the same thing has been reported by other Senators. The only thing isolated about THIS incident is the cease and desist.
I would consider once a day to be about appropriate, though I don’t know if that’s the law.
Getting their buddy to do the same is fine too. So long as their buddy lives in the state, they have every right to call as well.
I don’t know about your solution there, as their business is in fact to take calls from constituents.
Just for perspective - my daughter was recently employed in a US Senator’s office as the person who answers the phone for constituent calls. The person. It’s not some team of people cycling through an automated answering queue. So, I can certainly appreciate Sen. Johnson’s dilemma. If it is one individual, or a small number of individuals, bombarding the phone line, then IMHO it is reasonable to have a targeted response.
However, I must note that my daughter was trained to thank every caller for their concerns, both pro and con, and to let them know that their opinions were being tabulated for review by the Senator (which they were). In that spirit, if it were up to me, I would have counseled Sen. Johnson to take a deep breath, count to 10, and send a letter thanking the constituent for their feedback and kindly reminding them that their concerns had indeed been noted and tabulated, etc., and that their continued expressing of opinion was counter productive. I would suggest that a Cease and Desist approach is unnecessarily draconian and provides a secondary target for opponents to criticize (just like we’re doing here!)