Some (Republican of course) legislators are actually against banning robocalls.
While the Gov. comes out in favor of the smoking ban. Thats all well and good Gov. But where do you stand on the all important issue of car testicles?
Senate President Miller is talking Slots again.
3 comments:
You're analysis of the robocall bill leaves off two key facts:
- Democratic Sen. Rob Garagiola acknowledges the usefulness of the calls.
- Assistant AG Kathryn Rowe noted thate constitutional problems.
The fact of the matter is that banning robocalls is a First Amendment violation, and I can't actually believe that the General Assembly once again wants to pass blatantly unconstitutional legislation and then pass the buck on to the courts.
Brian:
Thanks for your interesting comments.
Ms. Rowe didn't say banning robocalls was unconsitutional. Instead, she wrote that banning only political robocalls is unconstitional (which accords with my understanding of the issue). She actually cites laws that limit all robocalls, regardless of content, which have passed constitional muster.
Last time I read the Constitution, it didn't mention robocalls.
The First Amendment clearly protects one's right to communicate their beliefs in the media, etc. Whether it protects the right to ring someone's residential telephone is another matter.
Do you think that Consitution protects one's right to make harrassing phone calls?
Would you argure that the first amendment would allow one to blast their political belief on loud speakers (powerful enough to be heard inside residences) in residential neighborhoods? What about at 2:30 a.m?
If people were more aware and active, political robo calls wouldn't happen.
Post a Comment