Results 1 to 15 of 44
- 09-26-2003, 07:25 AM #1PDA ManGuest
WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
"do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
next week.
"It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
"Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
(search).
The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
thousands of jobs.
Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
win in court for the list to move forward.
Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
1-888-382-1222.
West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
easily.
The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
more than 24 hours.
The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
numbers.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
"This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
people were encouraged to call.
Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
companies.
The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
an automated phone or online system.
Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
of politicians.
FULL STORY
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
› See More: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
- 09-26-2003, 07:36 AM #2Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
whether
> promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
>
<snip>
Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one of
them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
Tom Veldhouse
- 09-26-2003, 07:36 AM #3Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
whether
> promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
>
<snip>
Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one of
them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
Tom Veldhouse
- 09-26-2003, 07:40 AM #4JustinGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> whether
> > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one
of
> them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
> pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
> lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
> reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
less taxing.
- 09-26-2003, 07:40 AM #5JustinGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> whether
> > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one
of
> them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
> pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
> lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
> reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
less taxing.
- 09-26-2003, 08:10 AM #6Phill.Guest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> > whether
> > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one
> of
> > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
> > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
> > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
> > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
>
>
> If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
> less taxing.
And Gore would be President.
- 09-26-2003, 08:10 AM #7Phill.Guest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> > whether
> > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one
> of
> > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
> > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
> > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
> > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
>
>
> If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
> less taxing.
And Gore would be President.
- 09-26-2003, 09:00 AM #8Scott JohnsonGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
or more if you let them.
I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
such
a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
courts for years at taxpayer expense.
"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
> promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
>
> Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
> overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
> when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
> next week.
>
> "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
> Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
> "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
>
> Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
> Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
> do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
> U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
> lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
>
> "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
> (search).
>
> The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
> Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
> intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
>
> But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
> blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
> national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
> thousands of jobs.
>
> Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
> Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
> commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
> chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
> manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
>
> The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
> is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
> will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
> win in court for the list to move forward.
>
> Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
> up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
> 1-888-382-1222.
>
> West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
> no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
> immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
>
> The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
>
> While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
> second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
> do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
> easily.
>
> The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
> remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
> do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
> more than 24 hours.
>
> The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
> year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
> numbers.
>
> Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
> "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
> on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
>
> Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
> calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
> people were encouraged to call.
>
> Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
>
> The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
> including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
>
> The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
> the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
> association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
> Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
> calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
> companies.
>
> The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
> to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
> fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
> an automated phone or online system.
>
> Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
> of politicians.
>
> FULL STORY
> http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
>
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-26-2003, 09:00 AM #9Scott JohnsonGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
or more if you let them.
I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
such
a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
courts for years at taxpayer expense.
"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
> promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
>
> Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
> overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
> when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
> next week.
>
> "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
> Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
> "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
>
> Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
> Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
> do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
> U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
> lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
>
> "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
> (search).
>
> The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
> Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
> intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
>
> But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
> blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
> national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
> thousands of jobs.
>
> Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
> Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
> commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
> chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
> manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
>
> The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
> is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
> will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
> win in court for the list to move forward.
>
> Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
> up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
> 1-888-382-1222.
>
> West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
> no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
> immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
>
> The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
>
> While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
> second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
> do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
> easily.
>
> The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
> remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
> do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
> more than 24 hours.
>
> The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
> year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
> numbers.
>
> Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
> "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
> on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
>
> Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
> calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
> people were encouraged to call.
>
> Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
>
> The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
> including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
>
> The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
> the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
> association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
> Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
> calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
> companies.
>
> The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
> to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
> fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
> an automated phone or online system.
>
> Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
> of politicians.
>
> FULL STORY
> http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
>
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-26-2003, 09:12 AM #10JustinGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
> know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
> list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
> their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
> jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
> beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
> that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
> continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
> any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
> a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
> with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
> received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
> opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
> would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
> just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
> always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
> or more if you let them.
> I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
> such
> a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
> not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
> would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
> hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
> Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
> and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
> phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
> got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
> courts for years at taxpayer expense.
>
He Texas Highway patrol calls me once every three months to know if I want
to buy a sticker for my car.
- 09-26-2003, 09:12 AM #11JustinGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
"Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
> know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
> list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
> their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
> jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
> beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
> that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
> continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
> any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
> a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
> with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
> received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
> opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
> would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
> just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
> always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
> or more if you let them.
> I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
> such
> a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
> not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
> would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
> hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
> Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
> and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
> phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
> got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
> courts for years at taxpayer expense.
>
He Texas Highway patrol calls me once every three months to know if I want
to buy a sticker for my car.
- 09-26-2003, 02:48 PM #12JohnGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting their
right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is a
significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this different
treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.
"Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
> know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
> list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
> their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
> jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
> beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
> that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
> continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
> any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
> a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
> with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
> received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
> opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
> would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
> just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
> always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
> or more if you let them.
> I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
> such
> a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
> not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
> would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
> hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
> Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
> and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
> phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
> got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
> courts for years at taxpayer expense.
>
>
> "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
whether
> > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> >
> > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate
an
> > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
> > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking
effect
> > next week.
> >
> > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for
Rep.
> > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.
> > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
> >
> > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
> > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
> > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday
by
> > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
> > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
> >
> > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz
> > (search).
> >
> > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.
President
> > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls
are
> > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
> >
> > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
> > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued
the
> > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
> > thousands of jobs.
> >
> > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the
First
> > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,
blocking
> > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC
has
> > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
> > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
> >
> > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing
calls,
> > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal
issues
> > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC
must
> > win in court for the list to move forward.
> >
> > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue
signing
> > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
> > 1-888-382-1222.
> >
> > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency
offered
> > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
> > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Denver.
> >
> > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
> >
> > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
> > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
> > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be
solved as
> > easily.
> >
> > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded
with
> > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
> > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in
little
> > more than 24 hours.
> >
> > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
> > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
> > numbers.
> >
> > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign
up.
> > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang
up
> > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
> >
> > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded
with
> > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
> > people were encouraged to call.
> >
> > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as
well.
> >
> > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
> > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
> >
> > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies
and
> > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.
The
> > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
> > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to
block
> > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
> > companies.
> >
> > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three
months
> > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people
could be
> > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints
to
> > an automated phone or online system.
> >
> > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on
behalf
> > of politicians.
> >
> > FULL STORY
> > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-26-2003, 03:27 PM #13Scott JohnsonGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
Right, and I guess that's why I feel like there should be no
exceptions for any organization. It would seem that by putting
in exceptions a 1st ammendment issue now exists. By saying
to commercial organizations that "you can't" but to charitable
organizations "you can" you make a distinction which, as I understand
it, is the basis for a 1st ammendment issue. I'm
still very unclear on how free speech extends to the privacy of my home.
How is it anyone's right to essentially enter my home and begin
excercising their right to free speech. Only then do I have a right to
say "leave". But I don't have a right to say "no" up front? What about
the concept of "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting". If the 1st
ammendment issue is simply the result of introducing exceptions into the
no-call
rules then it seems that no-exceptions would be the answer. No calls
means no calls - period - my home, my phone, my decision. Hollar at me
all you want on public property but you can't come into my home
uninvited - physically or via my phone. Really I don't get the
difference between a door-to-door salesman and a telemarketer. If I put
up a No Trespassing sign on my property and a salesman comes up to my
door, don't I have legal recourse? Isn't he trespassing?
(and I'm really asking here - I'm not an attorney - all my common sense
says yes but I've learned over the years that that probably means the
law says no).
So, why can't I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my phone number. No
exceptions - I don't care if you want to sell me something, ask for a
donation or ask for my opinion - you can't just call my house or show up
at my door.
"John" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting their
> right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is a
> significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
> spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
> heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
> constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this different
> treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.
>
> "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
> > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
> > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
> > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
> > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
> > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
> > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
> > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
> > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
> > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
> > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
> > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
> > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
> > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
> > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
> > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
> > or more if you let them.
> > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
> > such
> > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
> > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
> > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
> > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
> > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
> > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
> > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
> > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
> > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
> >
> >
> > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> whether
> > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> > >
> > > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate
> an
> > > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
> > > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking
> effect
> > > next week.
> > >
> > > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for
> Rep.
> > > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
> Committee.
> > > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
> > >
> > > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
> > > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
> > > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday
> by
> > > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
> > > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
> > >
> > > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,
> R-Ariz
> > > (search).
> > >
> > > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.
> President
> > > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls
> are
> > > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
> > >
> > > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
> > > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued
> the
> > > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
> > > thousands of jobs.
> > >
> > > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the
> First
> > > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,
> blocking
> > > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC
> has
> > > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
> > > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
> > >
> > > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing
> calls,
> > > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal
> issues
> > > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC
> must
> > > win in court for the list to move forward.
> > >
> > > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue
> signing
> > > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
> > > 1-888-382-1222.
> > >
> > > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency
> offered
> > > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
> > > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
> Denver.
> > >
> > > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
> > >
> > > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
> > > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
> > > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be
> solved as
> > > easily.
> > >
> > > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded
> with
> > > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
> > > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in
> little
> > > more than 24 hours.
> > >
> > > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
> > > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
> > > numbers.
> > >
> > > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign
> up.
> > > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang
> up
> > > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
> > >
> > > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded
> with
> > > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
> > > people were encouraged to call.
> > >
> > > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as
> well.
> > >
> > > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
> > > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
> > >
> > > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies
> and
> > > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.
> The
> > > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
> > > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to
> block
> > > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
> > > companies.
> > >
> > > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three
> months
> > > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people
> could be
> > > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints
> to
> > > an automated phone or online system.
> > >
> > > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on
> behalf
> > > of politicians.
> > >
> > > FULL STORY
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
>
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-26-2003, 03:47 PM #14JohnGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every right
to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff minus
X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine. However, the
*government*, and thus the FTC, doesn't have that right. The court is
saying that if the government allows exceptions (i.e. distinctions), that is
an impermissible *governmental* infringement on the First Amendment. Even
though *you* proactively put yourself on the list, the government doesn't
allow an option for complete blocking. So the government, in effect, is
favoring charitable speech vs. commercial speech. I'm not a First Amendment
scholar, but the opinion has a valid, if not strong, argument.
So you're arguing for a no exceptions rule. That would alleviate the above
problem, but it creates a new one. Charitable speech is still speech, so
the government can't censor it without a significant reason (again, a First
Amendment issue). In previous cases, charitable speech has been deemed more
important to the public good than commercial speech. So, if you want to
block charitable speech, you have to have a damn good reason, much better
than for blocking commercial speech (heightened scrutiny vs. rational basis
review). The FTC made the distinction because it believed that it didn't
have a good enough reason to block charitable speech, but good enough for
commercial speech. It thought that a no exceptions rule would get shot down
because of this. So, in effect, by trying to avoid one constitutional
issue, they created another. Ironic, isn't it?
By the way, if you are interested in reading the 2nd opinion (which is the
more important one), it's online at:
http://www.co.uscourts.gov/opinions/ewn_030184.pdf
"Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Right, and I guess that's why I feel like there should be no
> exceptions for any organization. It would seem that by putting
> in exceptions a 1st ammendment issue now exists. By saying
> to commercial organizations that "you can't" but to charitable
> organizations "you can" you make a distinction which, as I understand
> it, is the basis for a 1st ammendment issue. I'm
> still very unclear on how free speech extends to the privacy of my home.
> How is it anyone's right to essentially enter my home and begin
> excercising their right to free speech. Only then do I have a right to
> say "leave". But I don't have a right to say "no" up front? What about
> the concept of "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting". If the 1st
> ammendment issue is simply the result of introducing exceptions into the
> no-call
> rules then it seems that no-exceptions would be the answer. No calls
> means no calls - period - my home, my phone, my decision. Hollar at me
> all you want on public property but you can't come into my home
> uninvited - physically or via my phone. Really I don't get the
> difference between a door-to-door salesman and a telemarketer. If I put
> up a No Trespassing sign on my property and a salesman comes up to my
> door, don't I have legal recourse? Isn't he trespassing?
> (and I'm really asking here - I'm not an attorney - all my common sense
> says yes but I've learned over the years that that probably means the
> law says no).
> So, why can't I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my phone number. No
> exceptions - I don't care if you want to sell me something, ask for a
> donation or ask for my opinion - you can't just call my house or show up
> at my door.
>
> "John" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting
their
> > right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is
a
> > significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
> > spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
> > heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
> > constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this
different
> > treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.
> >
> > "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
> > > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
> > > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to
call
> > > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not
a
> > > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
> > > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
> > > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
> > > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
> > > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do
have
> > > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
> > > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
> > > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
> > > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
> > > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
> > > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
> > > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15
minutes
> > > or more if you let them.
> > > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
> > > such
> > > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
> > > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
> > > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as
I
> > > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
> > > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
> > > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal
unrequested
> > > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
> > > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
> > > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
> > >
> > >
> > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > > <[email protected]>:
> > > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
> > > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering
> > whether
> > > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
> > > >
> > > > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to
celebrate
> > an
> > > > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court
ruling
> > > > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from
taking
> > effect
> > > > next week.
> > > >
> > > > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman
for
> > Rep.
> > > > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
> > Committee.
> > > > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
> > > >
> > > > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that
the
> > > > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
> > > > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling
Tuesday
> > by
> > > > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the
FTC
> > > > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
> > > >
> > > > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,
> > R-Ariz
> > > > (search).
> > > >
> > > > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.
> > President
> > > > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing
calls
> > are
> > > > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
> > > >
> > > > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in
Denver
> > > > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who
argued
> > the
> > > > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss
of
> > > > thousands of jobs.
> > > >
> > > > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the
> > First
> > > > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,
> > blocking
> > > > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The
FTC
> > has
> > > > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
> > > > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
> > > >
> > > > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing
> > calls,
> > > > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether
legal
> > issues
> > > > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the
FTC
> > must
> > > > win in court for the list to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue
> > signing
> > > > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
> > > > 1-888-382-1222.
> > > >
> > > > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency
> > offered
> > > > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
> > > > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
> > Denver.
> > > >
> > > > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
> > > >
> > > > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans,
the
> > > > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing
the
> > > > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be
> > solved as
> > > > easily.
> > > >
> > > > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they
responded
> > with
> > > > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but
the
> > > > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in
> > little
> > > > more than 24 hours.
> > > >
> > > > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an
election
> > > > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
> > > > numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to
sign
> > up.
> > > > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can
hang
> > up
> > > > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
> > > >
> > > > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded
> > with
> > > > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet
and
> > > > people were encouraged to call.
> > > >
> > > > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as
> > well.
> > > >
> > > > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of
telemarketers,
> > > > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
> > > >
> > > > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing
companies
> > and
> > > > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call
centers.
> > The
> > > > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the
Federal
> > > > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to
> > block
> > > > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and
telephone
> > > > companies.
> > > >
> > > > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three
> > months
> > > > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people
> > could be
> > > > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file
complaints
> > to
> > > > an automated phone or online system.
> > > >
> > > > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and
on
> > behalf
> > > > of politicians.
> > > >
> > > > FULL STORY
> > > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [posted via phonescoop.com]
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-26-2003, 03:56 PM #15RJGuest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:47:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every right
>to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
>soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff minus
>X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine.
Please explain how to do that.
---
Bob
icecasino
in Chit Chat