Here's a brief exploration of what does and does not constitute “freedom of speech” when it comes to phone calls, because it appears that at least one person posting on Two Cents is having some trouble understanding the First Amendment.

Here I go again, trying to respond rationally to an irrational person whose posts sound like a broken record, a person who still chooses to hide behind a computer screen. Oh, well.

Some phone calls are purely political in nature and they would be protected under the First Amendment, as long as one had not asked the caller to desist in the past. A convincing argument can be made that a call prompting me to vote yes or no on a certain bill, save the whales, or vote for a certain candidate is constitutionally protected - even if that call is unsolicited and anonymously placed. Even if a person I have never met calls me and leaves a civil message to call them back so that we can discuss some point of disagreement in the newspaper, people are certainly allowed to invite others to a debate.

On the other hand, we do not have a “constitutional right” to call any private citizen in the phone book any time we like and leave an impersonal, hostile diatribe on their answering machines. A hostile, impersonal diatribe read off a piece of paper is not a sincere attempt to establish dialog or win support for a political cause - it accomplishes just the opposite. For this reason, most people would consider such a call to be a nuisance, or harassment, depending on the specific content and tone of the message. Ask anyone whose romance has deteriorated into restraining orders - phone calls designed to “tell someone off” qualify as unwanted contact.

Lisa M. Backus

Auburn