** You’re not just trying to contact the man to convey your opinion, you’re actively trying to flood his office. Nice.
** I’m sure the judge is aware that citizens are capable of contacting him. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Yes, you are. You’re suggesting that since being called constantly is massively inconvenient, the judge should decide that the First Amendment does not apply.
Your point isn’t even a good one: because citizens expressing political views in a way deliberately intended to be obstructionist and annoying are obnoxious, it’s right to limit the access of commercial speech to a public method of communication.
From the outset, TVAA, I can’t help but notice that you ignored my last post and actually went to a much earlier post that you had already responded to. One does wonder why.
I also note that you have again failed to respond to the merits of the Colorado opinion and my critique therof, other than to say you disagree. You’re showing mighty poor form in here lately.
I’m suggesting that lots of people contact this particular government official and make their opinions known. Our government is, in part, founded on the right of people to complain to government offiicals about decisions with which they disagree. The exercise of that right is a good thing, and ought to be encouraged. **
I’m sure he’s aware that citizens can contact him. I’m just suggesting that the citizenry do so. **
I think the inconvenience of having many calls from citizens registering their disapproval of his opinion might go a long way in illustrating to the good judge that his balancing of privacy interests against commercial speech rights was incorrectly handled, yes. **
The privacy interest advanced by the do not call list, not the flood of calls themselves, is what makes a limitation on free speech permissible in this instance. The flood of calls would just illustrate this principle nicely.
Dewey, those are the first two posts of yours in this thread.
Perhaps the reason I’m not replying to your critique is that it isn’t present in this thread. Nah, that can’t be it.
You’re not just trying to get people to contact the office, you suggested that people attempt to call so often that it disrupts the office’s functioning.
Or perhaps this is a disagreement over the implications of the word ‘flood’?
Again, you miss the point: just because something is inconvenient does not mean it should be banned. Your argument is specious.
Tell me: how will calling this man’s public office demonstrate the importance of privacy interests? (Now I realize why I’d misremembered: calling the office instead of the house is an utterly pointless act, and I’d presumed you were smarter than that.)
Yes. And…? Rather than reply to my most recent post, you decided to jump back to an earlier post to which you had already replied. Odd behavior on your part, to be sure. **
Either your reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, or you’re lying outright. Earlier I wrote:
That’s my critique, albeit in abbreviated form. You still haven’t bothered to say boo about it. **
The balance you’re describing is a policy question, one Congress has already decided. If you think the do not call list is a terrible idea, then you are free to contact your congresspersons and ask them to try to repeal it.
The only issue at present is the degree to which, if at all, the first amendment would prohibit this particular act of Congress. You haven’t said a darned thing on that front. **
While it is true that the judge does not have the same privacy interest in his office as he does in his private residence, he does have some privacy interest there. I think a significant number of calls from irritated citizens would thus still illustrate how the balance between privacy and free speech should be struck in this particular case.
Although you’re quietly dressing your intentions in euphemism, you’re not suggesting that the population of these boards increase their civic awareness and become more active in the political sphere. You’re suggesting that we should start a campaign to pressure the judge into changing his mind.
However pathetic you find my analysis, it’s even more pathetic to reply with nothing but “gee, that sucks.” Given that this is a form dedicated to reasoned debate, I think you’re obligated to contribute a little more than that. **
Virtually all campaigns for promoting civic awareness and political activism are designed to apply public pressure to government officials. The two are not mutually exclusive, and are in fact quite complementary.
You’re absolutely right; that’s a valid criticism. But I’m sure you know that old saying: “Our judicial system is the worst in the world, except ALL THE OTHERS.”
** Given that this is a forum dedicated to reasoned debate, I think you’re obligated to contribute a little more than that. You want your analysis to be evaluated? Give us something of substance.
You’re trying to make the day-to-day functioning of this man’s office unpleasant. That goes beyond merely communicating a message – you’re leaning on the judge.
Even if I didn’t know, I would’ve been able to tell you’re a lawyer. Plenty of pretty words, no substance.
And for what now, the third time, you attempt to dismiss an argument you cannot seem to answer.
And which part of “petitioning government for redress of grievances” do you object to most? The fact that it is coming from a lot of people?
It would seem you prefer some limit on the rights of citizens to practice freedom of speech (since we don’t want to “nibble anyone to death”). What limits would you put on contacts with judges? Once a day? Once a week? Would you support those same limits on, say, telemarketers?
And, again, you are being inconsistent. You are actively defending the right of telemarketers to call me twenty times a week to try to sell me things I don’t want. This you claim cannot be banned, even though it is inconvenient.
But exactly the same tactic on a government official is a terrible thing. Why is that?
Contacting the government to show support for some bill has a far longer and more honorable tradition than some college kid peddling over-priced light bulbs.
Once and for all, give your rationale for arguing that a whole bunch of people cannot contact a judge, but a whole bunch of telemarketers can contact me.
Since you are so interested in “substance”, let’s have some.
** The “argument” is “prior caselaw makes distinctions between political and commercial speech, and the government should be able to regulate commercial speech if it chooses”.
That’s not much of an argument. It’s an opinion expressed as a coherent position, nothing more.
** No, the attempt to use the right to petition to overwhelm the judge and make his life difficult. There is a signficant difference between communicating with someone and spamming them. Dewey has suggested that large numbers of people call repeatedly at known inconvenient times.
Presumably he thinks this will give the judge a greater insight into how frustrated people are with telemarketing.
At most, it will make the judge sorry that we granted the right to political speech to such a bunch of simian cheeseheads.
** I’m not suggesting these people should be legally restrained. There’s no law against being a stupid jerk.
It is, however, the wrong thing to do in regards to simple human decency – a concept clearly beyond you.
** The same telemarketers? With the same calls? No. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be legally obligated to accept your asking them not to call, the same as anyone else. Repeatedly call someone despite their request not to, and they can hit you with harassment charges.
** Not legally, ethically. Duh. Why haven’t you caught on?
** You can contact the judge en masse in an attempt to inconvenience him. You’re a bad person to do so, though.
At least telemarketers are trying to sell you something; the inconvenience is merely a side effect. You’re trying to induce inconvenience by exploiting your right to political speech, which makes you a jerk.
My critique was a back-of-the-envelope version of why I think the judge’s reasoning was poor. If you’d like me to expand on any particular point, I’d be happy to. But you can’t just say my argument lacks substance without also saying why it lacks substance. I cannot, and will not, try to guess what you find objectionable; you have to tell me. Otherwise, there is no debate to be had.
I have never claimed that your opinion regarding the correctness of the decision is objectionable. I find it lacking in actual reasoning; it’s nothing more than an assertion.
Your suggestion that we should spam the judge who handed down the decision is objectionable, and you know perfectly well why.
I do not appreciate your continued attempts to misrepresent the nature of this debate.
Why are you people unable to grasp the idea that a perfectly legal course of action can still be wrong, reprehensible, and unworthy of any respect?
Why are you people unable to grasp the idea that a perfectly legal course of action can still be wrong, reprehensible, and unworthy of any respect?
I, being able to grasp ideas, find that the legal remark made above is wrong, reprehensible, and unworthy of any respect. And, of course, my findings makes the remark just so. :rolleyes:
For what it’s worth, I’m troubled by the idea of bombarding the judge with phone calls.
Although there is a strong tradition of lobbying legislators and executives, there is an idea floating around out there that our judges should be a little more insulated from the push of popular opinion. See, it happens now and then that the masses scream for something that’s just wrong. I’m sure you can think of many examples. In those situations, we need the judiciary to stand up against the majority.
Second, as a practical matter, the judge’s phone line is not the same thing as an opinion line set up by a congressman or senator to field calls from constituents. So you are being rude by using the phone for purposes it wasn’t intended.
Granted, telemarketers do just that (and I hope that the judge’s decision is reversed by the Circuit Court), but two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right.
You make a good point, and I would agree 99% of the time, but just this one time, the delicious irony of using the judge’s own ruling against him is awfully compelling. I just think this decision is ludicrous; it amounts to suggesting a constitutional right to annoy. And to be honest, I kind of like the idea of taking this bogus “right”, turning it around, and using it to annoy the judge. After all, it’s nothing the telemarketers aren’t doing to us, day in and day out.
However, I was told by a lawyer that the courts have traditionally been insulated from criticism. In other words, while political speech is usually given the highest protection by law, political speech against the judiciary is much less protected. Apparently you do not have the right to picket courthouses. But then that’s all the more ironic, because while annoying Judge Nottingham with phone calls may not be legally defensible, if he were to take action against anyone for doing so, he’d have to admit that different kinds of speech are subject to different legal standards, which is exactly the point that his ruling ignores.
Um, you’re not turning the ruling against him. You’re engaging in political speech, not trying to get the judge to purchase something.
You do not have a legal right to NOT receive phone calls from people you’d rather not speak to any more than you have a legal right not to receive unsolicited mail. You may have legal rights if specific individuals continue calling or mailing even though you’ve asked them to stop.
In a sense, you do have a “Constitutional right to annoy”; crank calls are generally not prosecutable if they’re harmless. What law makes it illegal to call up a random person and ask if their refridgerator is running?
Now, calling up a specific person many times to ask that question is not only indecent and rude, but potentially actionable.
Arguing prior caselaw makes it a bit more than an opinion. Ever hear of “precedent”? It establishes that government already does regulate commercial speech. And this does not violate the First Amendment.
“Prior caselaw” establishes that, in many instances, commercial speech is already treated differently from political speech. Telemarketing is commercial speech. Ergo, it can be subject to limitations that political speech cannot.
It strikes me as a completely valid argument, in the sense of a connected series of statements designed to establish a proposition.
Your reponses, on the other hand, look more like simply saying, “Is not!” and hoping no one notices that you have not significantly addressed any part of Dewey’s case.
Which shows that you really do understand the difference between protected free speech, and telemarketing. That “significant difference” is exactly the distinction under discussion, and the reason the judge’s decision is nonsensical.
Judges do not grant, and cannot revoke, the right to freedom of speech.
And I find it interesting that you only drag out the name-calling to derogate those who exercising their right to freedom of speech.
** That’s not the question here – the question is whether these limitations are reasonable extensions of past precedent.
** A single person or organization flooding someone’s phone number or email address with information many times is spamming. Dozens of people or organizations attempting to contact a person is not.
** Your right to free speech gives you the ability to heckle the elderly. It doesn’t mean that action is ethically correct.
What’s with the “Um”? I don’t see any reason for sarcasm here.
You missed the point. The judge ruled that it is improper to distinguish between different types of speech. It is my opinion, as well as several others in this thread, *as well as *many legal experts, that it’s a weak ruling. You do realize that when you say “You’re engaging in political speech, not trying to get the judge to purchase something”, you are in fact acknowledging the legal distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech, don’t you? And you do also realize that the exact point that the judge made is that it’s improper to make such a distinction, right? Are you really oblivious to the irony there?
The law passed by Congress gives us the legal right to opt out of receiving unsolicited commercial phone calls. Whether or not we have that legal right depends exclusively (at this point) on the fate of the Denver ruling. Unsolicited mail has nothing to do with it.
Actually, that right has been established by law for quite awhile now. But that’s not what we’re discussing.
Actually, I don’t know if there is a specific law against crank calls or not, and frankly, I don’t think it’s germane to this discussion. The absence of a particular law is NOT equivalent to a Constitutional right. It might be legal right now to shoot squirrels in my backyard, but that doesn’t implicitly mean I have a Constitutional right to shoot squirrels. They could pass a law tomorrow, and I would no longer have that right.
Absence of law -is not equal to- Constitutional right
