Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelGG | Hacker News Reader

No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent. I don't think that's barring free speech in any way, is it? Also, don't littering/nuisance laws start to come into play, at some point?

What's the difference between a phone book and a similarly sized brick with "Jesus loves you -- call us to find out more" on it? Can I go around leaving bricks all over the place under the guise of free speech?

View on HN

|No one wants to ban passing them out. It's just they want to ban passing out advertising without consent.

This may be the one sticking point they have around it. However, I wonder how this is any different than junk mail? Junk mail just pays the Post Office, how is that better/worse than paying an employee to pass out the flyer/phonebook/etc?

I think this is an interesting case and I'm looking forward to the outcome.

I don't know, but I would guess if junk mail is different, it is because of the special letter delivery laws that the US Post Office has. It would probably require some "CAN-SPAM" equivalent type law for letters to get rid of junk mail. But, as the PO gets paid for each letter, I doubt any such law would get through.

Exactly, but if I was the lawyer defending the phonebooks, that's exactly the argument I'd make--that the PO was no different and that paying a government employee to deliver the document* shouldn't make the act any more legitimate than paying your own employee to do so. You could argue it's anti-competitive or that it's essentially a bribe to the government as well.

*Document meaning any letter, junk mail, leaflet, flyer, or phonebook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com