Comments on: What Does It Mean to Make a Voice Call in a Post-Telephone World?–Howard v. RNC https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/01/what-does-it-mean-to-make-a-voice-call-in-a-post-telephone-world-howard-v-rnc.htm Thu, 15 Jan 2026 01:30:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Zatar Zarvati https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/01/what-does-it-mean-to-make-a-voice-call-in-a-post-telephone-world-howard-v-rnc.htm#comment-4540 Thu, 15 Jan 2026 01:30:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=28499#comment-4540 Re: In my view, every medium-exceptionalist statute ultimately collapses over time due to medium convergence. Congress misassumed that it could precisely define a telephone call that would accommodate changes in technology and social practices. As my long-standing idiom says, “if you can’t define it, you can’t regulate it.” Keep that in mind with the “social media” exceptionalist laws.

Massachusetts was writing technology-independent statutes in 1860 (when telephones did not exist).

Massachusetts General Statutes CHAPTER 64. OF TELEGRAPH COMPANIES. (1860)

Section 1. Every company incorporated for the transmission of intelligence by electricity shall possess the powers and privileges, and be subject to the duties, restrictions, and liabilities, prescribed in this chapter.

The transmission of intelligence by electricity is a phrase still used in Massachusetts General Laws although the phrase has been moved to the common carriage chapter, which explicitly includes the transport of intangible property whether by telephone system, by telegraph system, or by any other electricity-based system.

California enacted technology-independent Field-style common carriage statutes in 1872. The statutes are currently located in California Civil Code DIVISION 3 PART 4 TITLE 7 CHAPTER 5 ARTICLE 4. Common Carriers of Messages [2207 – 2209] (Article 4 enacted 1872.). At present, California state and federal courts seem to be ignoring the explicit original intention of David Dudley Field (a New York lawyer) and the 1872 California legislature. See Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Google LLC , 742 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2024).

]]>