Hacker News Reader

Comment by firstSpeaker | Hacker News Reader

One is probably has legal repercussion and the other has none but profit!

There is no legal repercussion in the US for the T-Mobile to allow that text, or even a text with implicit references to illegal activity.

Regarding T-mobile, they claim that content of the text msg must be legal across all 50 states. Not 100% sure which state and with law causes this but that is the reason they gave me.

Well the content of that message as stated by the OP is 100% legal across all 50 stays, even direct references to illegal drugs in messages is legal across all 50 states.

the drugs are what is illegal, not the messages.

If that was legally required of T-Mobile, don't you think it would be likely be legally required of all carriers? If that was true, don't you think there'd be a lot of people here confirming that Verizon and AT&T do the same thing? I am incredibly suspicious of the idea that this is a legal requirement, not a choice.

Sue them for aiding and abetting any crime that happens where one of the perpetrators carried a cellphone with their service.

"No, they clearly acknowledge their service is used for crime - they block these other messages."

For bonus points, find a case where blocking the 'weed' message got someone killed. (You order drugs, the guy says 'weed on the way' but you don't get the message so you don't meet him, he thinks it's a setup and gets mad ...)

Then how are they considering themselves a "common carrier?" Isn't this precisely against that definition?

Complying with laws violates being a "common carrier"?

What law are they complying with here?

There is no law criminalizing the utterance of certain words, that's absurd. By your logic saying 'I'm going out doors to weed the lawn' or 'Our neighbor was arrested for illegally selling weed' are somehow evidence of crime.

But that's clearly ludicrous. Individual words can't be illegal. Why would you not immediately dismiss this as the BS it is?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com