SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (9626)9/27/2003 6:57:17 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793656
 
LindyBill likes objectivity and you're the epitome of that.

I think on this one I may be part of the mob. It's hard to think straight and be objective when your phone keeps ringing. <g>

I agree that they should have disallowed the other calls as well, but it's not immediately apparent to me why banning one and not the other is a violation. Guess I should study up before I go any further with that thought. I haven't read the decision yet.

Meanwhile, here's something on the media for your reading list.

washingtonpost.com



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (9626)9/27/2003 8:38:03 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793656
 
It's hard work. It's honest work. It's work that fulfills a demand. I don't get any thrill messing with folks like that, any more than I'd get a thrill throwing a balloon full of paint at a brick layer and running away giggling. It's damned hard earning a living in this world and I admire them for trying, getting slammed, and trying again and again.



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (9626)10/1/2003 5:13:49 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793656
 
Of course it violates the 1st Amendment when they ban commercial speech but still allow politicians and charitable organizations to call.

Is it really banning commercial speech? It just giving the people who don't want the commercial speech in their homes the right to refuse it.

Tim