Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-smoke!ron
From: ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion,net.misc
Subject: Re: Auto-dialing Falwell
Message-ID: <653@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 01:46:36 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.653
Posted: Tue Jan 28 01:46:36 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jan-86 05:42:35 EST
References: <186@gladys.UUCP> <5684@cca.UUCP> <633@osiris.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 17
Xref: decwrl net.legal:3008 net.religion:9390 net.misc:8511

> > Harassing phone calls are illegal most everywhere and you could probably
> > sue someone doing that sort of thing and recover the costs (which should
> > be precisely calculatable from phone company records) if not more.
> > -- 
> > 	+1 617-492-8860		Donald E. Eastlake, III
> > 	ARPA:  dee@CCA-UNIX	usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something (not being a net.legal reader, and having to
> put up with a remarkably sporadic news feed), but do these calls fit the
> *legal* definition of a "harassing call"?  From what I seem to remember,
> they don't, but then I'm frequently wrong.  Anybody here know?
> 
I've fallen into this class.  It's a grey area as to what is harassing,
but it is almost certain that if someone tells you that you are harassing
them, and you continue to do it, that you are harassing them.

-Ron