Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: LindyBill who wrote (9859)	9/29/2003 5:16:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793672

Yeah, it is a good point. I remember the Cincinnati case now that it's come up again. When I posted on this yesterday, not having remembered that case, I was thinking that the issue is not so much freedom of speech as privacy. Privacy is the reason they passed the law and, from a privacy perspective, as I said yesterday, a ringing phone is a ringing phone. From a freedom of speech perspective, distinctions are routinely made between commercial and political speech. So...the decision doesn't make sense to me from a freedom of speech perspective but it does from a privacy perspective. And the issue is a strange mixture of the two.