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

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]

---

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

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
and drug labelling.

--
Mark

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


Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
during prime time?
Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
transmissions?
If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

The term commercial free speech is a term used by the courts, not made up by
yours truly. If you want, I have a copy of a law review on this subject
that I can privately e-mail to you. Send an e-mail to me. I'm
stuartfriedman. The dom'n name for me is Ameritech, followed by the d o t
and a net suffix. Please my manner of presentation, but I'm trying to
avoid the close cousin of the telemarketer.

Stu
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial
free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to
think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those
same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we
could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.
>
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

you didn't research far enough.
you can take that out of state company to florida court. you can be awarded
up to $10k. that's a good $10 investment.

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

Amen!

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:17:00 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

>"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.

Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
they claiming principle?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"[T]he world is not a perfect place. It is a world filled with malice and
evil, a world where, today, none of us is truly safe, even in our homes,
from the very real danger that a total stranger will call us up and demand
that we change our phone company." - Dave Barry

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
> they claiming principle?
>=20

Who says both aren't true?

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

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

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

So take out the exceptions -- I don't want to hear from the politicians or
charities, either.

>Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
>liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
>porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
>and drug labelling.

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

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"'And if that Billy goat don't shed, papa's gonna buy you ... a squirrel
named Ed.'" - Dave Barry

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:59:57 -0700, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

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

Kindly show me where that material was in the post he responded to.

>I guess from your statements that you believe the rights of free speech for
>telemarketers trump the right of people to call for emergency assistance
>with a service they PAY for?

You guess wrong. As he has tried to explain to you, just because he
explained the judge's opinion does not mean that he agrees with it.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I consider myself to be the most important figure in the world."
- Idi Amin

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:07:49 -0700, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

> Come to think
>of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
>during prime time?

You don't see telemarketing services on TV because they aren't selling
themselves to a general audience. Their clients, however, DO also advertise
on TV. A major example would be credit card services. I get more calls
about credit cards than everything else put together, yet the companies
that call me (or hire a service to call me) also mail me and are all over
the tube.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Damn colonels! Can't trust any of 'em." - Colonel Sherman Potter

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

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

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

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

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

--
Mark

I'll drink to that

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

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

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

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

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

Conjunction Junction was not my function.

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

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

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

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

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