No soilicitation signs on businesses

If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I should
be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course, the
right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution. This will
be interesting.

---

› See More: No soilicitation signs on businesses

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I should
> be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
> under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course, the
> right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.

The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade

> This will
> be interesting.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I should
> be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
> under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course, the
> right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.

The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade

> This will
> be interesting.

The issue with the 2nd court is that the "no soliciting" sign isn't a
blanket "no soliciting." There's an exception for charitable and political
calls. Only commercial calls are blocked. So, in essence, you're
discriminating against one type of free speech while guaranteeing another.
That's how the First Amendment argument goes, at least. The court
specifically stated that this concern would be much weaker if all types of
calls, including charitable/political calls, were blocked. The rest of the
claims were tossed because the arguments were ridiculous.

As for the first court in Oklahoma, its main concern was that the FTC didn't
have the authority from Congress, only the FCC did. Given Congress's
actions within the last few days, this court's ruling will likely be
overturned quite easily.


"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
should
> be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
> under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
the
> right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution. This will
> be interesting.
>
>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:44:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The issue with the 2nd court is that the "no soliciting" sign isn't a
>blanket "no soliciting." There's an exception for charitable and political
>calls. Only commercial calls are blocked. So, in essence, you're
>discriminating against one type of free speech while guaranteeing another.
>That's how the First Amendment argument goes, at least. The court
>specifically stated that this concern would be much weaker if all types of
>calls, including charitable/political calls, were blocked. The rest of the
>claims were tossed because the arguments were ridiculous.
>
>As for the first court in Oklahoma, its main concern was that the FTC didn't
>have the authority from Congress, only the FCC did. Given Congress's
>actions within the last few days, this court's ruling will likely be
>overturned quite easily.
>
>
>"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
>should
>> be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
>> under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
>the
>> right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution. This will
>> be interesting.
>>
>>
>

The second amendment does a great job of keeping the solicitors
away from my house. I often go out to the gun range on Friday
afternoon which leaves me cleaning several guns in an open garage on
Saturday morning (when the Jehovah's are out). Since most of my guns
are heavy military types and rather menacing looking, they tend not to
come around. Works well even if it wasn't the intended purpose. Wish I
could look forward to the end of these damn calls that start as early
as 8am and have frequently come in after 10pm but the latest judge is
correct in upholding the first amendment. We need more judges that
will uphold the constitution. The ACLU is tearing it up as fast as
they can...

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:44:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The issue with the 2nd court is that the "no soliciting" sign isn't a
>blanket "no soliciting." There's an exception for charitable and political
>calls. Only commercial calls are blocked. So, in essence, you're
>discriminating against one type of free speech while guaranteeing another.
>That's how the First Amendment argument goes, at least. The court
>specifically stated that this concern would be much weaker if all types of
>calls, including charitable/political calls, were blocked. The rest of the
>claims were tossed because the arguments were ridiculous.
>
>As for the first court in Oklahoma, its main concern was that the FTC didn't
>have the authority from Congress, only the FCC did. Given Congress's
>actions within the last few days, this court's ruling will likely be
>overturned quite easily.
>
>
>"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
>should
>> be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
>> under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
>the
>> right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution. This will
>> be interesting.
>>
>>
>

The second amendment does a great job of keeping the solicitors
away from my house. I often go out to the gun range on Friday
afternoon which leaves me cleaning several guns in an open garage on
Saturday morning (when the Jehovah's are out). Since most of my guns
are heavy military types and rather menacing looking, they tend not to
come around. Works well even if it wasn't the intended purpose. Wish I
could look forward to the end of these damn calls that start as early
as 8am and have frequently come in after 10pm but the latest judge is
correct in upholding the first amendment. We need more judges that
will uphold the constitution. The ACLU is tearing it up as fast as
they can...

Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
how she wished that she never did what she did. Just FYI.

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
should
> > be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
> > under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
the
> > right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.
>
> The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade
>
> > This will
> > be interesting.

Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
how she wished that she never did what she did. Just FYI.

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
should
> > be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
> > under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
the
> > right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.
>
> The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade
>
> > This will
> > be interesting.

G R Jenks wrote:
> Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
> how she wished that she never did what she did. Just FYI.

Yes, she did. I also recall why she made her decisions, and her
explanation was a series of failed commitments, both personal and
public. The true saviors of the free world stand and die on commitment
- despite Roe's lack of it.


>
> "Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
>
> should
>
>>>be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
>>>under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
>
> the
>
>>>right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.
>>
>>The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade
>>
>>
>>>This will
>>>be interesting.



--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

G R Jenks wrote:
> Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
> how she wished that she never did what she did. Just FYI.

Yes, she did. I also recall why she made her decisions, and her
explanation was a series of failed commitments, both personal and
public. The true saviors of the free world stand and die on commitment
- despite Roe's lack of it.


>
> "Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If a business can legally prohibit solicitation on their property, I
>
> should
>
>>>be able to "hang" a no solicitation sign on my phone. A right protected
>>>under our constitution ends when it violates another right. Of course,
>
> the
>
>>>right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the constitution.
>>
>>The Ninth Ammendment was close enough for Roe v. Wade
>>
>>
>>>This will
>>>be interesting.



--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:20:46 -0700, "G R Jenks" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
>how she wished that she never did what she did.

It comes under the heading of "I got mine, so now I can be
self-righteous and keep others from getting theirs."

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:20:46 -0700, "G R Jenks" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Roe changed her name and views... I recall she wrote a book talking about
>how she wished that she never did what she did.

It comes under the heading of "I got mine, so now I can be
self-righteous and keep others from getting theirs."