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

I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.

Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call on
a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.


Stu

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
and
> see if you change your mind!
>
>
> "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> First
> > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
for
> > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
cut
> > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> organized
> > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I HATE
> > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
her
> > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> >
> > Stu
> >
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even
> > > > better,
> > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our
> > > > free
> > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > >
> > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > >
> > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
> > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

---

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

I'm not in favor of the law being overturned. I'm on the do not call list,
both the state and federal version of the same. I just think from my
knowledge of the first amendment that the judge's opinion raises some
significant constitutional issues and that Congress won't have the courage
to pass the fix for this ruling (e.g. banning charitable and political fund
raising from people on the do not call list). The judge might get
overturned on appeal, but unlike the first judge's ruling, I think that this
opinion is more problematic and I could see the ruling being upheld. The
ruling is on Findlaw and you can find a deep link to it off the New York
Time's website. Give it a hard read and form your own opinion. I hate the
results, but giving the ruling a hard look, I see the potential for the
judge being upheld.

Stu

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?
>
> Because it's irrelevant. You are getting mad at him... and mad at me...
> because you think just because some information was posted that we are in
> support of what happened.
>
> Actually, I have somewhat revised my opinion of the judge in Denver
because
> he was against the law because _he didn't want there to be any
exceptions_,
> which would imply that he's on our (consumers') side. Regardless, I said
> nothing that would imply that I'm happy that the law is facing an overturn
> again. I'm not, and you can't assume that I am from what I said.
>
> Which apparently has not stopped you...
>
> Anyhow, my only point was that the it is a stretch to ASSUME the person
> you replied to was in favor of the law being overturned because he didn't
> say that he was. He didn't even imply that he was.
>
> I'm sorry if that makes me anti-consumer, but I can't see how it does.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

A slight modification to my prior post. The ban on unsolicited calls to
cellphones doesn't purport to exclude various groups from the law.
Therefore, the law is neutral. The Denver judge's ruling states that a
complete ban would be fine.

Stu

PS: I got hit with a telemarketing call while roaming internationally.
You are correct, I wasn't pleased.

"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
>
> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
>
>
> Stu
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> and
> > see if you change your mind!
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > First
> > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> for
> > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> cut
> > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > organized
> > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
HATE
> > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> her
> > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
even
> > > > > better,
> > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
our
> > > > > free
> > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
Chris
> > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Stuart Friedman wrote:

> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected.

The constitutional right of free speech is a protection from United
States government imposition only, not from individual US citizen or
other non-government group imposition. Also, reasonable time and
place restrictions can still be imposed by the government. Time
and place restrictions have been found to be constitutional by the
Supreme Court.

- Dan

In article <[email protected]>,
Stuart Friedman wrote:

> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected.

The constitutional right of free speech is a protection from United
States government imposition only, not from individual US citizen or
other non-government group imposition. Also, reasonable time and
place restrictions can still be imposed by the government. Time
and place restrictions have been found to be constitutional by the
Supreme Court.

- Dan

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood of
>these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
>dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
>

I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood of
>these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
>dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
>

I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.

Gee, then according to your freedom of speech crap, it's unconstitutional to
pass any laws about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

Remind me to get a VCR or DVD player so I never have to go to theatres
anymore.

Note that the text of Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.



"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
>
> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
>
>
> Stu
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> and
> > see if you change your mind!
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > First
> > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> for
> > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> cut
> > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > organized
> > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
HATE
> > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> her
> > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
even
> > > > > better,
> > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
our
> > > > > free
> > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
Chris
> > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Gee, then according to your freedom of speech crap, it's unconstitutional to
pass any laws about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

Remind me to get a VCR or DVD player so I never have to go to theatres
anymore.

Note that the text of Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.



"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
>
> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
>
>
> Stu
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> and
> > see if you change your mind!
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > First
> > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> for
> > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> cut
> > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > organized
> > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
HATE
> > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> her
> > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
even
> > > > > better,
> > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
our
> > > > > free
> > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
Chris
> > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:34:58 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
> on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.

You get your landline service for free? I have to pay for mine. It's a
monthly
rate, but I'm paying for it. Every second the phone is unavailable because
a
telemarketer is tying up the line is a second the service I'm paying for is
unavailable to me. That is theft of service, as their calls are unwanted,
something I make quite clear each time one calls.

You're clearly confused. A right isn't something you can purchase. A right
isn't
something you have to pay to exercise. A right simply exists. Just as
commercials
have a right to pitch their wares, I have a right to not listen to them.
Both of
these are considered "free speech."

--
Mark

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:34:58 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
> on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.

You get your landline service for free? I have to pay for mine. It's a
monthly
rate, but I'm paying for it. Every second the phone is unavailable because
a
telemarketer is tying up the line is a second the service I'm paying for is
unavailable to me. That is theft of service, as their calls are unwanted,
something I make quite clear each time one calls.

You're clearly confused. A right isn't something you can purchase. A right
isn't
something you have to pay to exercise. A right simply exists. Just as
commercials
have a right to pitch their wares, I have a right to not listen to them.
Both of
these are considered "free speech."

--
Mark

First Amendment 101. The Government is permitted to pass content nuetral
limitations on free speech such as reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. Where Government gets itself in trouble is that where it
targets a particular message. That is why a government can ban all signs
from city hall lawns, but if it permits private individuals to post certain
generally inoffensive messages there (e.g. Jewish stars, Christmas trees,
yellow ribbons, etc), it must also permit the more offensive messages to go
on those lawns, (e.g. swastikas, klan symbols, etc). Calling after 9pm is
a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Limiting door-to-door
solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the government
into trouble.

Stu

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> > > Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
> > >
> > > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM)
in
> > > >their local time.
> > >
> > > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a
large
> > > bucket of steaming dog****.
> >
> >
> > It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time,
which
> I
> > believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> So what's your point? Is it NOT illegal to call after a certain time and
> just *****? In that case, can he call from a payphone at 3 AM and say (not
> offer to sell You like **** so much, I'm gonna send you a free steaming
> bucket of dog****? Isn't the keyword here solicit versus just call and
> *****? Are there any laws against calling to complain at any time? Can we
> call the judge and just ***** ?
>
>

First Amendment 101. The Government is permitted to pass content nuetral
limitations on free speech such as reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. Where Government gets itself in trouble is that where it
targets a particular message. That is why a government can ban all signs
from city hall lawns, but if it permits private individuals to post certain
generally inoffensive messages there (e.g. Jewish stars, Christmas trees,
yellow ribbons, etc), it must also permit the more offensive messages to go
on those lawns, (e.g. swastikas, klan symbols, etc). Calling after 9pm is
a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Limiting door-to-door
solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the government
into trouble.

Stu

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> > > Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
> > >
> > > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM)
in
> > > >their local time.
> > >
> > > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a
large
> > > bucket of steaming dog****.
> >
> >
> > It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time,
which
> I
> > believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> So what's your point? Is it NOT illegal to call after a certain time and
> just *****? In that case, can he call from a payphone at 3 AM and say (not
> offer to sell You like **** so much, I'm gonna send you a free steaming
> bucket of dog****? Isn't the keyword here solicit versus just call and
> *****? Are there any laws against calling to complain at any time? Can we
> call the judge and just ***** ?
>
>

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.

The NO Call list is no different that hanging a "No Solicitation" sign
on the front door of my house and protecting my private space while at
home eating dinner, watching TV or doing anything else.

If they want to try to sell me something something, drop it in the mail,
although I usually stand at the Recycle Bin after getting the mail and
drop all those flyer's in. They never make it past the door into the
laundry room.
--
Mark


"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
> listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
> to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.
>
>
>
> "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> > protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> > Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> > cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> > wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
> >
> > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
> on
> > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
> >
> >
> > Stu
> >
> > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> > and
> > > see if you change your mind!
> > >
> > >
> > > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > > First
> > > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> > for
> > > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> > cut
> > > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > > organized
> > > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
> HATE
> > > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> > her
> > > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > > >
> > > > Stu
> > > >
> > > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
> even
> > > > > > better,
> > > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
> our
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
> Chris
> > > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

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.

The NO Call list is no different that hanging a "No Solicitation" sign
on the front door of my house and protecting my private space while at
home eating dinner, watching TV or doing anything else.

If they want to try to sell me something something, drop it in the mail,
although I usually stand at the Recycle Bin after getting the mail and
drop all those flyer's in. They never make it past the door into the
laundry room.
--
Mark


"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
> listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
> to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.
>
>
>
> "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> > protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> > Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> > cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> > wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
> >
> > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
> on
> > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
> >
> >
> > Stu
> >
> > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> > and
> > > see if you change your mind!
> > >
> > >
> > > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > > First
> > > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> > for
> > > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> > cut
> > > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > > organized
> > > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
> HATE
> > > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> > her
> > > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > > >
> > > > Stu
> > > >
> > > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
> even
> > > > > > better,
> > > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
> our
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
> Chris
> > > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]