Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Judge rules against do not call list
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Big Trials and Legal Cases
Google
Grendel72
Here is the story.
What I'm curious about is why the FTC was put in charge of the Do Not Call list instead of the FCC in the first place. The FCC would seem to be the obvious choice. I must admit that the more conspiracy minded side of me thinks it was done the way it was specifically so that it could be overturned by the courts while politicians claim they tried to fix the problem. Watching C-Span, some of the grandstanding on this issue was quite over the top, and watching it I could only ask why, if they are so concerned, did they not put the proper agency in charge of the list.
Can anyone explain why the FTC would have been put in charge of the list in the first place?
Google
NiteGuy
It was done using the FTC instead of the FCC for the basic reason that, while they were using the telephone (FCC control), it was most often used for the furtherance of interstate commerce (sales), which is the jusrisdiction of the FTC.

Also, I don't know if you've seen the news since you posted this, but there was a massive call-in / email explosion directed towards the judge who made the ruling, and both houses of congress.

Said email flood and call-in campaign must have scared the congresscritters. The House and Senate both drafted legislation by early afternoon that does explicitly give the FTC the authority to regulate telemarketers and enforce the No-Call List. They haven't moved this fast on legislation in decades! The President is expected to sign the bill in plenty of time to have the law go into effect as planned, next Tuesday.

See what happens when you really get us average joes all riled up? Now, if we could just get as riled about some of the other garbage going on in this country.
GoAmerica
Another whining Judge cites Free Speech

Second judge whines about list

How is this free speech? This is violating MY right to Privacy by having to deal with the phone and someone who wants to sell me garbage. This is utterly insane. Leave it alone.

I also must add a warning that illinois might jump into this. It was in a local paper. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. I am sick of telemarketers. Give me your number so i can flood your phone and see how you like it!!

Also, read this: Article

QUOTE
Judge West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.

Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing.


Does that mean they will have to actually find a REAL job? Oh my! ohmy.gif mad.gif

But Jay Leno did have fun with this:

QUOTE
The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night.

"The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner."


laugh.gif
Hobbes
QUOTE
Another whining Judge cites Free Speech


If that's his concern, I'm sure he won't mind if all 48 million of us (who signed the list) used his home phone to voice our concerns? Or does the right to free speech stop at his door?
Eeyore
Whining judges going on and on about the Constitution?! What a travesty. It's a shame this debate isn't criticizing the interpretation of the law in this case. 50 million voters is quite a coup. The House and the Senate will pass a remedy for this legal issue before the week is out.

Sorry if our judicial system is getting in the way again.

I just caught two minutes of the O'Reilly "No Spin Zone" where he bemoaned the insane rulings of the judge in this case, the panel in California, and the judge in the Mussoaui (sp?) case all at the same time.

Maybe this judge actually enforced the law properly in this case.

It's interesting to see some conservative voices on the anti-business pro-regulation side of the aisle for a change though!
Beladonna
Although I believe everyone, no matter their political leanings wants the Don't Call List to go forward, we should also consider the significant loss of jobs this country will encounter. Up to one million jobs are in telemarketing.

That will mean more job losses attributed to the current administration.

Opponents of Bush will use these job losses to their advantage in Election 2004 even though they, through their actions, will have contributed to the job loss DIRECTLY.

Just food for thought.
GoAmerica
Beladonna

Just means that the 1 million would have to find a real job where they actually do something other than try to peddle a product via phone and annoy ME and 200+ million Americans DAILY.


Eeyore

I don't see how telemarketing applies to Free Speech. More like maybe Free Trade or Free whatever but certainly not Free Speech. More like Freedom to annoy the stuffing out of me
Eeyore
Maybe you should look at what the judge in Denver was saying about this. I believe the ruling is that some callers are blocked while others are not (political campaigners).


But the line "Another whining judge cites free speech" rubs me exactly the wrong way. If not the judiciary then who? Does the Bill of Rights rub you the wrong way?
NiteGuy
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Sep 26 2003, 08:27 AM)
Maybe you should look at what the judge in Denver was saying about this.  I believe the ruling is that some callers are blocked while others are not (political campaigners).

Not just political campaigns, but other non-profit organizations, as well as companies you already hace a business relationship with (your bank, for instance, or newspaper subscription renewals, etc.).

There was a reason for the above exemptions. Political campaigns and non profit charities and the like because political speech has always been held in higher regard than commercial speech. If you already do have a business arrangement with a company, it's hard to argue against their ability to inform you of new services.

But I'm not saying it's right. There are plenty of other venues for politicians and charities and PACs to solicit money from, as well. They should all have been included. Even businesses could inform their customers via regular mail, e-mail, etc.

So, in my opinion, maybe the judge is right, sort of. If the FTC is going to block telemarketers, they should have blocked them all. For me, this isn't a free speech issue as much as it is a privacy issue. If I want to contribute to a charity or political campaign, I'll call them. My bank has a new service I might be interested in? Great, stuff a flyer in with my monthly statement. If I can use it, I'll call them or stop into my local branch office.

The fact of the matter is, there is a huge number of people in this country that don't want to be bothered with telemarketers. Period. On the other side of the fence, there is an even larger group who have yet to sign up on the do not call list. Maybe they mind the calls, maybe not, but they haven't indicated that they don't want to be called.

So, if you are a telemarketer, who would you rather call? Someone who has explicitly stated that they don't want to talk to you under any circumstances, or someone who has indicated that they don't necessarily mind the intrusion, and might be receptive to your message?

So, no, this isn't a "free speech" issue, this is a privacy issue. And I believe that in my home, my right to privacy trumps the callers right to try and make a profit, especially when he has plenty of other venues in which to sell his product.
Eeyore
Niteguy,

Thanks for the good post in here. I hate phone solicitation but my wife is an insurance agent and does some cold calling so I am do eat some food that comes from this source of income.

My main gripe on this thread is that the anger at phone solicitors seemed paramount to the validity (or lack thereof) of the judicial legal interpretations.
Google
Hobbes
QUOTE
It's interesting to see some conservative voices on the anti-business pro-regulation side of the aisle for a change though!


I believe for many conservatives right to privacy outweighs any pro-business, anti-regulation concerns. The reason we're anti-regulation to begin with is the assumed invasion of privacy that usually goes hand-in-hand with that....
Cadman
Like Niteguy has said and many on the news stations is it will actually be better for the telemarketers, because they will not waste calling someone that clearly has shown they do not want to be bothered by these type of calls. So in affect calling only the people that have not signed up to the Do Not Call list. Hmm makes sense not calling the people that don't want to be called so maybe the telemarketing companies will actually be more profitable by having a select group to call instead of wasting money calling people that are not interested.
Eeyore
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 26 2003, 10:35 AM)


I believe for many conservatives right to privacy outweighs any pro-business, anti-regulation concerns.  The reason we're anti-regulation to begin with is the assumed invasion of privacy that usually goes hand-in-hand with that....

So conservatives should be against this and against the patriot act right?
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Sep 26 2003, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 26 2003, 10:35 AM)


I believe for many conservatives right to privacy outweighs any pro-business, anti-regulation concerns.  The reason we're anti-regulation to begin with is the assumed invasion of privacy that usually goes hand-in-hand with that....

So conservatives should be against this and against the patriot act right?

That's right, and I am. No one has a right to free speech inside my house! Ask our children tongue.gif

Phone solicitors are literally harassing us 20 times a day. I've asked again and again for them to stop calling, but they never do. I can hang up, ask them nicely, tell them I'm sick of it, whatever, the same companies call again and again. I called Sprint to ask if there was some way to ban specific companies from calling (some of the same companies harass me 5 times each and every day) they explained there was nothing they could do in my state! I need this bill to pass for my sanity, the phone rings constantly and I've stopped answering. These people even leave messages on the answering machine.
Eeyore
Okay but if a law or procedure for finding a way to limit phone solicitation (outside of things like caller id that can be done) is unconstitutional is it the judges fault who rules the law or procedure invalid?

I feel confident with the force of 50 million people on a do not call list that politicians from all side of every aisle in this country will get this thing done and pronto.

Is this stuff the fault of the judicial branch?
Cadman
Actually Mrs. Pigpen, if they call answer the phone and ask for there company name and ask to be taken off their list and if they continue to call you for up to 10years, you can sue them here's a link with info passed back in 1991 http://www.junkbusters.com/fcc.html. The main thing to remember is take notes on the information that it tells you such as name of business, person you talked to, phone number, and the time and date of call for your records.

Also while I was investigating another situation I found some other information that can get you off list.

QUOTE
taken directly from the FTC website
Direct Marketers

The Direct Marketing Association’s (DMA) Mail and Telephone Preference Services allow you to opt out of receiving direct mail marketing and telemarketing calls from many national companies for five years.

When you register with these services, your name will be put on a “delete” file and made available to direct-mail and telephone marketers. However, your registration will not stop mailings or calls from organizations not registered with the DMA’s Mail and Telephone Preference Services.

For Direct Mail Marketing

Direct Marketing Association
Mail Preference Service
PO Box 643
Carmel, NY 10512

Or go online at www.the-dma.org/consumers/offmailinglist.html

For Telemarketing

Direct Marketing Association
Telephone Preference Service
PO Box 1559
Carmel, NY 10512

Or go online at www.the-dma.org/consumers/officetelephonelist.html
Mrs. Pigpen
A thousand thanks, Cadman! I'll look into it. flowers.gif
NiteGuy
What I find really ironic in all of this is that one of the judges who ruled against the law, and eleven executives from these telemarketing companies all signed up for the list!
Catwoman
NiteGuy
Could you please tell me the source that told you about the 11 executives that signed up for the list. It would be very helpful for a debate I am in.
Jaime
QUOTE(Catwoman @ Nov 20 2003, 06:55 PM)
NiteGuy
Could you please tell me the source that told you about the 11 executives that signed up for the list.  It would be very helpful for a debate I am in.

Catwoman - we frown upon solicitations for homework help (See: AD Survival Guide). If you are interested in debating with us, please do so in a constructive fashion.

TOPIC TO DEBATE:
In light of the Judge's ruling -
Can anyone explain why the FTC would have been put in charge of the list in the first place?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.