Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Communications Government Robotics United States News Your Rights Online Politics Technology

Judge Rules Political Robocalls Are Protected By First Amendment (onthewire.io) 191

Posted by BeauHD from the free-speech dept.
Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed. The decision came in a case in Arkansas, where political robocalls had been illegal for more than 30 years. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Leon Holmes ruled that banning political robocalls amounts to an infringement of free speech protections and also constitutes prior restraint of speech. Political campaigns have been using robocalls for decades, and some states have sought to ban them, arguing that they are intrusive and violate recipients' privacy. In the Arkansas case, the state attorney general put forward both of these arguments, and also argued that the calls can tie up phone lines, making them unusable in an emergency. Holmes said in his decision that there was no evidence that political robocalls prevent emergency communications, and also said that the Arkansas statute should have banned all robocalls, not just commercial and political ones. "The statute at issue here imposes a content-based restriction on speech; it is not one of the rare cases that survives strict scrutiny. The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest," Holmes wrote.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Political Robocalls Are Protected By First Amendment More

Judge Rules Political Robocalls Are Protected By First Amendment

Comments Filter:

    • In Soviet America you do not call the phones, the phones call you.

      • Mr Number filters out political robocalls. Innovation strikes again!

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • I simply don't answer calls if I don't recognize the number.

            But doesn't that involve getting up from your dinner and going to look at the phone display? (if it's the land line or you don't keep tyour mobile on the dinner table - not everyone does). Not so simple.

    • Vote with your vote (Score:2, Insightful)

      by s.petry ( 762400 )

      I subscribe intentionally to the do not call list with all my numbers. Some political hack calls me I simply won't vote for them. I have a good memory for people that show me no respect or courtesy so will go out of my way to vote for their opponents.

      The power of the Boycott works for Politicians too!

      • I subscribe my number to the DNC list too - and I get multiple calls a week.

        With politicians free to robo-call you, I can almost guarantee that you will have no-one left to vote for come November.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by s.petry ( 762400 )
          Not a challenge. It simply changes to "who has pissed me off more".

      • This. Simply tell them, since it's shooting or hanging this time around anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether a crook or a clown rules you, you originally wanted to make your decision based on the flip of a coin, but now it's going to be which party is going to piss you off via pestering phone calls less.

        And the length of the call also goes into this consideration.

        Now that you know this, is there anything left you want to tell me?

        • I think your translator broke right after your started your second sentence. The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote. People don't like that very much, but that is a fact. The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media. Again, that is factual.

          I generally don't have Presidential candidates robo-calling, I have people at Congress/Senate or State level pestering me. Note that TF

          • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Rakarra ( 112805 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:34PM (#52609993)

            The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote

            Sure, but let's not pretend that Trump was the friend of the Republican establishment and that they didn't want him taken down.

            The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media.

            Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact. I have grave doubts that the DNC really managed to do much of anything -- certainly nothing on the level of Ron Paul getting screwed in 2012. The fact is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Sorry, "Democratic Socialist," and more Democrats are more interested in a "mainstream" candidate than a socialist. Bernie Sanders had an extremely hard road uphill, and once Clinton got to the South (where few people like Bernie), it was over.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by s.petry ( 762400 )

              I did not pretend anything, I was simply clarifying facts since it appeared that GP made a false claim. I still can't comprehend what they really intended to say, so have to take the ACs translation of it as correct.

              Speaking of pretending though, your doubts about the impact of cheating really mean nothing, as you start with a fabricated claim. California had several lawsuits being filed for voter fraud, with poll workers instructed to give Bernie voters invalid ballots among other allegations. That is o

            • I agree that the DNC ultimately had little actual impact on the outcome of the elections (though DWS and the rest of the DNC still deserve disdain for their approach and actions), but his Democratic Socialism was I think marginal in impact; where it mattered was in Democrats' perception of its effect on his general election electability. Sanders' biggest failing was among minority voters and in the South, because while he stumped well and had a strong central message, his outreach and partnering was terribl

        • Simply tell them

          How? More than half of the robocalls I receive are recorded messages, and if there's any interaction it's by touchtone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Email (well, not really, the best you can hope for is filling out a web form which they incorrectly call "email") a congresscritter sometime. They'll email you back using a dead-end, we don't read email sent to this account, address. They'll also put you on their email list and spam you forever.

  • So make it equally first amendment to block them (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    My phone line does not have to accept every call made to it.

    • Re:So make it equally first amendment to block the (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @04:48PM (#52608605)

      It is "equally first amendment" to block them. The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all. The Judge didn't say you can't block them because first amendment, he said you can't single them out to be blocked based on their content.

      • The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all.

        The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state. Serving the interests of the citizens and not the politicians.

        • Re:So make it equally first amendment to block the (Score:5, Informative)

          by JesseMcDonald ( 536341 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:46PM (#52609067) Homepage

          The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state.

          The state could have accomplished the same end by banning all robocalls that the recipient didn't specifically sign up for. Since that wouldn't be based on the content of the calls it wouldn't be subject to this particular 1st Amendment challenge. By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.

          • By banning politicial robocalls in particular they guaranteed that the law would be found to violate the 1st Amendment.

            You are aware that there are significant bans on political speech that have not been found to be unconstitutional, I hope. And specific rules for political speech that do not apply to other types. Also not unconstitutional.

      • The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.

        Using this judge's backwards reasoning, that is a violation of the 1st amendment and said exemptions must be shat upon.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.

          Political speech has always been treated differently, from day 1. Unlike commercial speech, political speech is granted specific leeway in the US Constitution.

        • No, you just didn't think about it. This is a straightforwards and obvious ruling, there is nothing "backwards" about it.

          And they don't analyze it that way, adding and subtracting the State and Federal laws from each other. Each has to be legal on its own. The Federal law does not matter here. The State law simply isn't allowed to try to plug the loophole (that Congress intentionally included) in the Federal law by examining the content. If they want to regulate it, they have to do in a content-neutral way;

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      So make it equally first amendment to block them. My phone line does not have to accept every call made to it.

      This. I should be able to set up a "EULA" on my phone, my mailbox, my email account and whatever else communication channel I have indicating what forms/groups/types of contact I will accept. Anyone wishing to contact me would have to self-certify that they belong to a category I'll accept. Then you can make it an offense to lie, just like on immigration forms.

  • Autodialers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Funny how autodailers were illegal when it was just hackers using them to poke around.

    • Not to mention the bit implying that a compelling *state* interest would justify abridging the First Amendment.

      I mean, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right, shouldn't abridging it require a compelling *public* interest? That is, protecting the rights of other citizens, as is the case in the classic example of yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If a compelling state interest is sufficient to abridge our constitutional rights, then those rights exist only so long as they don't interfere with the s

      • That's what a compelling "state" interest is - the state being the people. The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.

        • The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.

          Yes, there are many restrictions on speech. You cannot for example stand out someone's bedroom at 3am and engage in "free speech" with a megaphone. Free speech is not the same as freedom to impose it on other people.

          As someone who's been working from home for the last two weeks, I can assure you that robo calls (not political but it ma

    • Re:Autodialers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @06:29PM (#52609319) Journal

      Funny how autodailers were illegal when...

      But that is exactly what the judge is pointing out. The judge is quite correct here, it is a simple matter and the law is invalid on its face.

      If they banned ALL unsolicited autodialers -- which many states do -- then it is constitutional. Prohibiting the activity for everyone is proper.

      By banning ONLY political autodialers it becomes a limitation on a specific type of speech. Limiting only a group of people or a specific type of speech is generally improper.

  • This raises a good question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by npslider ( 4555045 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @04:47PM (#52608597)

    Does this mean that robots are protected under the U.S. Constitution?

    Can they vote for the candidate they are calling for?

    • Does this mean that robots are protected under the U.S. Constitution?

      Can they vote for the candidate they are calling for?

      Well, I guess that means our next President will be . . . Bender!

      • Re:This raises a good question (Score:5, Funny)

        by npslider ( 4555045 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:16PM (#52608835)

        The 2020 Presidential Candidates and slogans:

        The Republican Party: Google Now - "Make America great NOW!"
        The Democrat Party: Siri Applegate - "I will lead, you will follow!"
        The Green Party: Amazon Echo - "Every day is Prime day!"
        The Libertarian Party - Microsoft Cortana - "Vote for me and get Windows 12 Free!"
        The Anti-Privacy Party - Facebook Chatbot - "All your base are belong to us"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

        Well, I guess that means our next President will be . . . Bender!

        He wasn't born in the U.S.though nor is he 35 or older.

        • He wasn't born in the U.S.

          Being born in the USA isn't a requirement. Ask John McCain or Ted Cruz.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Robots are people. Just below corporations but well above Homo Sapiens.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Results just in

      32bit Party: 4,294,967,295

      64bit Party: 18,446,744,073,709,551,615

      Floating point party: 3.402823 x10^38

      Clear victory by the floating point party but there is some suspicion of voter fraud as they appear to be unable to provide an exact vote count.

    • it means that if you're gonna pass a law to block robo-calls it has to block _all_ robo calls. You can't single out one type of call based on it's content.

  • Judges and logic, always a riot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29, 2016 @04:51PM (#52608627)

    I'd require that those robocalls be done by humans for it to count as "free speech". If we go by this judge's ruling, then, hey, putting a tape recorder on the assembly floor would be an acceptable fillibuster strategy, no?

    • Under this logic, the government could bad YouTube vidoes it doesn't like.

      Speech is and should be protected. Listening should not be.

    • I'll admit, that was my first thought. But I thought about it a bit more.

      The issue is that recorded speech is protected as well. If I make a video saying that a certain politician is a vile person for whatever reasons--assuming that I'm not committing slander--just because I'm doing it "live" doesn't mean it's not protected speech. The government can't ban me from distributing that video just because of it's contents.

      Like others said, the judge is right. Unfortunately.

      To use a right-wing slogan, "freedo

  • First Amendment ... no, sorry. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @04:51PM (#52608631)

    A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed.

    It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience.

    The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest

    Wouldn't it be novel if a law only had to show that it advances a compelling CITIZEN interest?

    • Re:First Amendment ... no, sorry. (Score:5, Informative)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:22PM (#52608893)

      You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls. That made it's restriction content based, something that's a big no-no. It is still may be perfectly legal to ban ALL robocalls you just can't police them by content.

      I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly. When the fed's banned robo-calling the politicians exempted themselves. Someone should challenge the federal law and get it tossed because it also uses content as a decider. The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.

      • You miss an important distinction. The Alabama law in question banned ONLY political calls.

        How does that change what I said about political calls being subject to the DNC? And you might note that the DNC exemptions are based on content. If you ban "all but X", then you've made a just as unconstitutional limit on speech as allowing "X", under this ruling.

        I'd like to see this extended nationally honestly.

        You miss an important distinction. Wait, that's what I just said -- "It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list". But I missed an important distinction.

        The backlash would force congress to ban all robocalls.

        What color is the sky on your planet? It is blue here on Earth.

    • >"It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience."

      Exactly. Except it should be illegal for *ALL* robo calls to *ANY* phone, including land lines. This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with invading my privacy, wasting my time, and being an unnecessary annoyance. They can send through the US mail if they want to contact me.

      • I receive robocalls that I welcome. I'm signed up for the robocall if my city declares a snow emergency. I get some robocalls from my health care providers.

        • And I receive useless robocalls from the City about what THEY think are "important" notices (which are not) and found out they refuse to have a way for citizens to opt out (and remember, I have an UNLISTED NUMBER). I finally determined the City uses a third party system and went to THAT company and they said the City didn't pay for an opt-out option! But because I was making so much noise, they manually took my number out of the system.

          I can't stand robocallers and I think their use should be not just ill

          • It seems to me that some people want them and some don't. The solution is not a binary one of allowing all or denying all. Just make operators of robocalls register an originating number and allow the customer to block those numbers and allow exceptions.

        • I receive robocalls that I welcome. I'm signed up for the robocall if my city declares a snow emergency. I get some robocalls from my health care providers.

          I have windows and can see if it is snowing. Why TF would you need robot calls from a health care provider? Serious question; my mother has visiting health care and I cannot think of a scenario where a robot call would be needed.

  • Someone should organize the "Do Not Call" political party and put him on a hourly loop with vitally important messages.

  • Not a great headline (Score:4, Informative)

    by jratcliffe ( 208809 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @04:59PM (#52608701)
    The judge didn't rule that political robocalls couldn't be banned, but rather that you couldn't JUST ban political robocalls. Generally, content-based restrictions on speech face a much higher hurdle than form-based restrictions. If the law had banned ALL robocalls, it might still have been overturned, but by only trying to ban SOME robocalls, the law was banning speech based on its content (political vs. charity message), and that's a very tough hurdle to get over.
    • Completely missing the point that my phone line isn't anyone's public forum and hence not covered by the first amendment. The only one with any standing to complain about this law is the telephone owners that like robocalls, especially political ones.
      • There have been restrictions based on calling, but there's general agreement that calling somebody is a form of speech, and deserves some form of protection, although by no means unlimited protection (hence you have the TCPA, the do-not-call list, etc.). The do-not-call list has held up thus far partly because it's limited generally to commercial calling, and commercial speech receives less protection, in general, than other kinds of speech.

      • There is no technical difference between the front door of your home and your phone outside the neccesity to be in a specific location. They are all points of contact in which you can ignore, hang up or slam the door shut, or engage the person trying to contact you. In a sense, outside of being inconvenient at times, it is little different than post mail.

        If you told politicians they couldn't knock on your door or send you mail, would they have standing to complain? The bottom line is that if you have a mea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      The problem with such a law would be that some robocalls are legitimate and useful. For example, when my son's elementary school robocalls everyone to say that school is closing early. That's really important!

    • It banned commercial and political campaign calls, but not all political calls. " The court, applying strict scrutiny, held that the statute was not narrowly tailored to protect the governmentâ(TM)s purported interestâ"to protect residential privacy and tranquility from unwanted and intrusive automated calls. Id. The statute restricted two types of automated callsâ"consumer and politicalâ"but permitted unlimited proliferation of other types, so the statute was underinclusive. Id." The

  • Free speech != right to be heard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:00PM (#52608709)

    Free speech is not the right to blast your message into someones bedroom at four in the morning. It is also not the right to break into your house and talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner. And it is also, therefore, not the right to break into your house electronically (using a phone) to talk to you incessantly while you are having dinner.

    • True, but that's not what was at issue here. The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.

      • The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.

        IANAL, but I understood that the charitable calls could already be banned (by placement on the user's DNC list), but not politcal ones (which cannot be put on DNC lists). So this state tried to close that loophole by specifically banning political calls, thus making everything level. This judge said that you cannot discriminate against a particular type of call (although those who made the CNC list rules did), and presumable he, like the state, did not have the power to overturn the rule that politicians

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:00PM (#52608713)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:You have the right to speak but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:15PM (#52608823)

      The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.

      Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)

      Time to close those loopholes.

  • This is where legal theory and practical reality are colliding.
    * It does not make rational sense that we allow commercial companies to use robocalls for advertising.
    * It does make rational sense that my child's school can robocall the parents if there is an unexpected early dismissal.

    Back when commercial robocalls were allowed, people were inundated with calls. The dinner time advertisement recorded call was a regular event in our house during the 80s and 90s. Even now, where it is mostly illegal, sometim

  • Since when is calling me on my private phone anyone's right, let alone protected speech? It is one thing to say that politicians may not buy advertising space in a paper or on a web site that otherwise carries advertising or that they can't stand up on a soapbox blathering forth in a public space. It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind. My phone isn't a public space and calling me isn't your first amendment right

    • Re:Stupid $%^#&@ Clueless Judges (Score:5, Informative)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @06:15PM (#52609243) Journal

      It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind.

      I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.

      Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.

      • It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind.

        I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.

        Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.

        I did read the article, thanks. I maintain that my phone is not a public forum. The underpinning of the judge's opinion seemed to be that it is. So, I say again, my phone is line is mine. It not your right, or anyone else's to robocall me, at any hour, for any purpose of your choosing. Therefore, it is fine for the state to come along and ban robocalls as they see fit.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Everybody I know already does this.

      Call coming in that's not in your address book? To voicemail it goes.

      With Google Voice transcripts, I don't even have to listen to them... DELETED.

  • Let's Call Him (Score:4, Insightful)

    by terbeaux ( 2579575 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:24PM (#52608921)
    Tell him how you feel: 501-604-5380 US District Judge J. Leon Holmes 500 West Capitol Avenue, Room D469 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-604-5380 Courtroom 4D Staff Information Law Clerks: Nicole Swisher, Lauren Summerhill Courtroom Deputy: 501-604-5384

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cpotoso ( 606303 )
      Actually we should set some robots calling these numbers incessantly with some political message.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by neminem ( 561346 )

        "Hi! I'm a robocaller! I'm just calling to let you know that this message is free speech and there's nothing you can do about it! Nyah nyah nyah!"

        I would argue that "what constitutes free speech" itself definitely falls under the category of "political messages". So let's just all robocall him with that message roughly every 3 seconds, see if he gets the message?

  • Registered phone numbers? (Score:3)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:46PM (#52609063) Homepage Journal

    Even if political robocalls are protected, shouldn't there at least be some provision to have all robocaller phone number registered? The idea would be to allow people to a) block them if the so choose b) prevent 'political' [insert product here] robocalls?

  • Thing like this do make me pine for the days of actual switched circuits; when an airhorn, or even a really good whistle, could send enough signal and generate a loud enough noise to cause pain to the person on the other end, especially if they were wearing a headset. Yes, I know we're talking about robo-callers here. But they're almost always solicitations such that some keypress or another will connect you to someone in the organization calling you.

  • Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:57PM (#52609119)

    That judge just pretty much declared my phone to be a public place, in other words, I am under no obligation to pay for it, it's tax funded now. Yay!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      No, but it does feel reasonable for you to invoice any political party that spams you without your consent, costing you money.

      Obviously your invoice will include a charge for your time, and eventually the small claims court fees you're incurring to enforce payment.

  • And get it put on every spam list.

  • Having political opinion shoved down your throat as fact is the same thing as a street evangelist following you around with a loudhailer. It might be free speech but it is HARASSMENT when you are clearly walking away with NO INTENTION of listening.

    No. I'll go one step further. It's like a penis. It's all good having religion or a political opinion because it shows at least some awareness of the world outside your immediate bubble, and you should be rightly proud of your wang, but the SECOND you start shovin

  • Let me be one of many to point out that robots are not people. Politicians... well, they are lower than robots in my book, but fine, if one of them wants to call me *personally*, I'll tell them everything I think about them.

    And more importantly, the 1st amendment bars *Congress* from limiting speech. The federal do-not-call list is *opt-in*. Which means it's *I* who expresses the desire to limit speech I hear. Totally my right to scream "nananana, cannot hear ya" any time I want! Nothing to do with

  • I'm here to announce that if I get a robo call from a political candidate, I will under no circumstance vote for that person.
    I encourage everyone else to do the same.

    If your opponent starts making fake robo calls to trick me into not voting for you, I guess you should have tried harder to ban their use.

    Later suckers!

  • And (Score:4)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:16PM (#52609915)
    The scammers and political Robocalls have enticed me to not answer the phone unless I know exactly who is calling. The Telephone system is now a liability, and not much more. The home phone displays who it is, and the mobile phone doesn't even ring unless the number is in the contacts list. So they can both go fornicate themselves/

  • "...no evidence that political robocalls prevent emergency communications..."

    Of course not... everyone who could complain died in the fires that weren't put out, or before the could successfully call for an ambulance to save them from their heart attack, or because their phone rang while they were hiding under the bed as the killer searched their room while they were waiting to press "send" on their 911 call...

  • Robocall all the Politians! (Score:3)

    by WorBlux ( 1751716 ) on Friday July 29, 2016 @11:51PM (#52610455)
    Seriously, someone should start a service where you can pay $1.00 to robocall every politician that purportedly represents you, and deliver a custom message of your choosing. $2.00 for premium voices, like Indian support center guy, or the annoying chick from you navigation app (you know the one).

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close