Response to peer’s post
Can you help me understand this English question?
requirement: post a paragraph response to one of the other postings by your classmates. Make clear which comment you are responding to. You may agree, disagree, ask a question, or try to come up with a transition connecting two of the ideas in different postings. (350 words)
Peer’s post:Choice 3. Type a three paragraph response to Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time (handout 591-). In the first paragraph, summarize this article by Patti Waldmeir. For the second and third paragraph, identify two opposing views suggested by the article (try to identify Waldmeir’s position as well), and give reasons that could be used to support each view.
This article mainly tells how the U.S. constitution intrudes people’s live. People always receive a variety of calls and emails in their lives. But people hate those commercial telemarketing calls and email. They want “do-not-call” and “do-not-spam”. Because they are free, they have this right not to receive these calls and emails. The Constitution stipulates that businesses have the right to promote their products. But if this Constitution can not protect the of all people. At the end of the article, Waldmeir says everyone shares the same constitution, so the constitution should protect everyone’s rights.
Most people are bothered by advertising calls and mails. There was a do-not-call registry that can allow people to reject advertising calls. Lots of people went to register to stop themselves from being advertised. In fact, this is not constitutional. Judge Edward Nottingham who struck down the registry because its unconstitutional. In fact, the reason why he struck down the registry is the registry banned too little. He also does not want to receive the calls from policemen. Stuart Banner of UCLA law school says the efforts for do-not-call and do-not-spam made now are all preparing for the future. Michael Powell says, he does not believe that United State will prevent people from protecting their home. So the people cannot be disturbed while taking a shower.
But if the constitution helps people reject these advertising calls and mails, the freedom of speech of many commercial companies will be violated. Stuart Banner of UCLA law school says if the government blocks all solicitation, commercial and noncommercial, this will limit the free speech of people what should be protected. From the article, Michael Powell more inclines to protect the sanctity of people’s home. But his words may have a bad influence on commercial companies. This is also an infringement against to commercial companies.
