Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

Archelaos wrote: post #106
tptacek wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unco…

> You will never be able to do so Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?

> Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory?

Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences.

> Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?

Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#122

Post by squarefoot »

kube-system wrote: post #80
andai wrote: post #61

Can someone explain why this part is necessary? >7. Cash the check and dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. (You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.)

Part of settling a case is you ending your legal action. That’s your end of the bargain. Their end is cutting the check, (or whatever other terms you’ve agreed to.)

Being a non native English speaker I also found that wording a bit odd. To me reads like you don't sue them in the future if they commit the same exact type of violation, that is, if they spam you again, while it now seems clear that the purpose is to avoid being sued twice or more for one violation.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#123

Post by kderbyma »

isn't there a possibility for constant unsolicited text message after the lawsuit??

if he agrees to not sure them for it....they can just keep sending them and probably increase the frequency? I mean. he could just block the number....but I guess he wanted 1k for his time and to prove it was doable.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#124

Post by dataflow »

tptacek wrote: post #101
cwkoss wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years. Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unco…

> because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner

What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#125

Post by poofsoda »

thathndude wrote: post #31

Lawyer here. I do this kind of work for a client. Good for this guy for taking the fight to the spammers. As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Some of what was said in the tweets regarding your rights and what you have to do to file a claim are, in my experience and opinion, not correct. The general idea is right, but some of the…

Related question I’m hoping you know the answer to: can I use this as a recourse against debt collection calls or texts? I get numerous calls and texts for the prior owner of my cell phone number (to whom I have no relation to be clear) that have persisted for ~6 years despite repeatedly informing them I am not the individual they want to contact and asking to be removed from their records.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#126

Post by alar44 »

aliqot wrote: post #32
flerchin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and folks could even have a credit of 500 phone calls a month, or whatever a reasonable number would be, so no cost to consumers at all. Instead of a tax, it should be a minimum charge that goes to the carriers. So that they would be incentivized to collect it.

In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? This won't work.

Companies have to pay for commercials and billboards, why don't those go away?

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#127

Post by runnerup »

game-of-throws wrote: post #103
gnopgnip wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political txt, email and calls are (mostly)protected by the first amendment as free speech. It would be unconstitutional for the government to restrict it with very limited exceptions, mostly related to imminent threats of violence. Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Servi…

There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you. I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).

> I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).

A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”.

Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless.

I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper.

Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#128

Post by Teever »

tptacek wrote: post #101
cwkoss wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years. Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner. Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unco…

Freedom of speech isnt freedom to make people listen. If I tell someone to stop calling me and they dont its harassment.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#129

Post by game-of-throws »

runnerup wrote: post #127
game-of-throws wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you. I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).

> I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone). A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”. Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to…

USPS will always deliver mail, but you can refuse to accept it. If your mail carrier doesn't follow procedure, then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...

I agree with your other points. Stop the subsidies. I'm not sure why spam makes me so irrationally angry, but it does.

Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message

#130

Post by game-of-throws »

whatshisface wrote: post #89
game-of-throws wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't this solve the problem? Phone calls have a real cost, however small it may be, to both the recipient and the carriers. Everyone accepts paying for stamps. What makes paying for calls different, and such an abhorrent idea that we shouldn't even discuss it? EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.

If paying for stamps can't stop junk mail, I don't see how paying for calls could stop cold callers.

Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal.
Post reply on HN