NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
> <[email protected]>
> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> everything:

>> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
>> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
>> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
>> and drug labelling.
>
> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
satisfied.

You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
enacted and allowed by the courts.

--
Mark

---

› See More: NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

I'll drink to that

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:20 -0400, Mark Allread
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:20 -0400, Mark Allread <[email protected]>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
>> <[email protected]>
>> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>> everything:
>
>>> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
>>> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
>>> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
>>> and drug labelling.
>>
>> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
>> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.
>
>You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
>satisfied.
>
>You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
>you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
>enacted and allowed by the courts.

Bull****. I was not attempting to explain cigarette ads or any other crap,
nor was I making any sort of comment on restrictions on free speech. I was
only pointing out that one of the examples you used in your argument was
invalid.

Conjunction Junction was not my function.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Here lies Captain Ernest Bloomfield. Accidentally shot by his orderly,
March 2nd, 1879. Well done, good and faithful servant." - inscription on
British soldier's grave in Northwest Frontier of modern-day Pakistan

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:40 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great
equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:59:57 -0700, "Peter Pan"
><[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
>life, the universe, and everything:
>
>>"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover,
>>>
>>> I think you're overreacting. Stuart was stating facts, not saying he was
>>> happy that the idiot in Denver made the decision he made.
>>>
>>Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?
>>
>>The part you snipped:
>><paste>
>>Ever try and call 911 (a service that we pay for) when a telemarketer has
>>the phone line tied up? Ever have your security alarm try and call the
>>police or fire but can't because some telemarketer has your phone line tied
>>up? Ever get telemarketing calls on your cellphone where YOU have to pay for
>>the incoming call airtime the telemarketer uses?
>><End Paste>
>
>Kindly show me where that material was in the post he responded to.

I found it... in a totally separate thread, meaning that he *didn't* snip
it.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my
fishburger and I realize, Oh my God... I could be eating a slow learner!"
- Lynda Montgomery

Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:

>I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
>supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
>to Free Speech.

Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

Peter Pan wrote in <[email protected]>:

>
>"Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
>> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
>> to Free Speech.
>>
>
>
>Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
>speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
>the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
>For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
>advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
>movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
>of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
>during prime time?

Gee you mean the reason why ABC doesn't run KKK recruitment ads is
because the government restricts commercial speech? You are confused.

Mark Allread wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
>> <[email protected]>
>> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>> everything:
>
>>> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
>>> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
>>> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
>>> and drug labelling.
>>
>> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
>> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.
>
>You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
>satisfied.
>
>You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
>you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
>enacted and allowed by the courts.

The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
this stuff before spouting off?

"Steve Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> >supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> >to Free Speech.
>
> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

what about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ?

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:45:21 GMT, Steve Hanson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark Allread wrote in <[email protected]>:

>> You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude
>> that
>> you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
>> enacted and allowed by the courts.
>
> The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
> restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
> away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
> this stuff before spouting off?

Cigarette ads on TV are prohibited by US Law, and have been since the
'70's, which
you could quickly Google if you're head weren't up your ass.

--
Mark

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:39:50 GMT, Steve Hanson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
>> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
>> to Free Speech.
>
> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. The founding fathers,
obviously MUCH smarter than you, understood this. There was great debate
over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
In the end, they decided that without a Bill of Rights, idiots like John
Ashcroft would assume that citizens had NO rights without it.

--
Mark

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Allread <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> >> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> >> to Free Speech.


I don't recall in the Consitituion a "Requirement to Listen". You want
to be strapped down to hear Al Sharpton? Mary Carey maybe.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark=20
[email protected] says...
> There was great debate
> over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
> like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
>=20

Mark didn't say any right doesn't exist. He simply pointed out, accurately=
,=20
that it's not enumerated.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

Mark Allread wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:45:21 GMT, Steve Hanson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Allread wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>> You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude
>>> that
>>> you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
>>> enacted and allowed by the courts.
>>
>> The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
>> restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
>> away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
>> this stuff before spouting off?
>
>Cigarette ads on TV are prohibited by US Law, and have been since the
>'70's, which
>you could quickly Google if you're head weren't up your ass.

My, both belligerant and ignorant. I suspect I'm in the presence of a
friendless loser.

Tobacco companies have indeed made numerous agreements over the years
to restrict advertising. Federal law about television ads only
applies to broadcasters (as you yourself note) because of the way
spectrum is controlled and so really it's a rather poor example to
bring up. All sorts of special standards apply to public airwaves
which don't apply to other commercial speech. But then why do I
suspect you have a mind incapable of making fine distinctions? It
couldn't be your extremely clever posts here that make me think that.

Mark Allread wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:39:50 GMT, Steve Hanson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
>>> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
>>> to Free Speech.
>>
>> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
>> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.
>
>Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. The founding fathers,
>obviously MUCH smarter than you, understood this. There was great debate
>over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
>like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
>In the end, they decided that without a Bill of Rights, idiots like John
>Ashcroft would assume that citizens had NO rights without it.

Astonishing, since some of the finest legal minds agree with me that a
right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Constitution and was created
around the time of Griswold by activist jurists (a point of some
controversy, which you'd know if you had clue 1 on this topic).
Rights have distinctions you know. Do you know what a fundamental
right is? Do you know anything about the case I cited? Do you know
what the reference in the recent Lawrence v. Texas was about? Do you
know how to tie your shoes?

You claim: Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. Well how
the **** do you know which rights you have and which you don't? Then
you contradict yourself a couple of seconds later by admitting that
the bill of rights enumerates rights specifically because people would
have no guaranteed rights otherwise. Which, you know, is what I said.
You are one confused cretin.

plaguebeast wrote in <[email protected]>:

>
>"Steve Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mark F wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
>> >supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
>> >to Free Speech.
>>
>> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
>> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.
>
>what about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ?
>
Somehow I didn't find the word "privacy" in that phrase. I must be
going blind because otherwise your statement would be a non sequitur.