NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>(Anybody notice we only lock up the folks that don't look like us? Nobody
>discussed internment of Germans during WWII!

I am of German descent, and remember my mother telling me that people
of German ancestry were awfully quiet during WWII on matters concerning
their heritage. Things like speaking German in public, German social clubs,
German cultural events. But at least they had a chance to blend into
the background, unlike people of Japanese descent.

---

› See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>(Anybody notice we only lock up the folks that don't look like us? Nobody
>discussed internment of Germans during WWII!

I am of German descent, and remember my mother telling me that people
of German ancestry were awfully quiet during WWII on matters concerning
their heritage. Things like speaking German in public, German social clubs,
German cultural events. But at least they had a chance to blend into
the background, unlike people of Japanese descent.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > | The government does all kinds of unConstitutional things
> > | every day including the Patriot Act and the detention of so-called
> > | terrorists at Guantanamo without benefit of the full protections of US
> > | law.
> >
> > Absolute rubbish - the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional nor is the
> > detention of terrorists, not one of whom can lay any legitimate claim to
the
> > "full protection" of US law since they aren't US citizens....!
>
> Good point- I think that same argument was used a lot in support of WWII
> Japanese internment. Oh, how history has smiled on THAT!


Let's not mix our arguments. First of all, the Patriot Act has a LOT of
aspects to it -- some of which are very reasonable and justified. But most
people only think it has to do with privacy, etc. For that part, I say two
things:

1. 99.999% of the people that are worried about it have such an
overinflated sense of self-importance that it is laughable. Of 250 million
people in the country, do you really think the government cares what YOU
read or do or say or buy??

2. There is more "private" information floating around in corporate
databases and government records and on the Internet than you could ever
imagine. And some of that is a function of our open society. Court
records, for one, are public (for the most part). Property records are
public (for the most part). And so on. I can, at the drop of a hat, get a
list of all people in a given area with and income of $XXX or and other
variable. The only real thing the government gains is the ability to drill
at the data in the opposite direction and to combine disparate resources.


> > |That doesn't mean we bend over and smile with glee when they stick
> > | their dicks up our asses. If I denied telemarketers' free speech,
then I
> > | would be giving the government the ability to decide speech content
for
> > | me because they would enforce it against those groups which were
> > | politically unpopular and allow politically popular groups to claim
they
> > | were not really telemarketers.
> >
> > Pure, unadulterated, impossible to validate bull****.......telemarketers
> > have NO right to impose on anyone hiding behind the First
Amendment....which
> > isn't about selling products, but rather about protected political
> > speech.....!
>
> Actualy commercial speech IS protected. This is a democracy.

It has LIMITED protection. It may be regulated. And, no, the US *isn't* a
democracy.


> Somebody tell me when the left and right switched sides? I grew up in
> the 70's when the right supported law enforcement, then they suddenly
> became despised "jack-booted thugs". The Republicans of my youth
> were pro-democracy and anti-government interference in our lives.
> they want Government to regulate free-market advertising like
> telemarketing and control who and how I can f**k in my own bedroom.

I somewhat agree with you here. Personally, I'm tired of BOTH sides telling
me what I can't do or say or think. Or, at the very least, having their
adherents verbally assault those who disagree with them. This country
THRIVES on the free flow of ideas and STAGNATES when it is reduced to BOTH
parties spouting garbage at each other and blowing every little thing out of
proportion.


> This is exactly a free speech issue- either ban all unsolicited calls or
> none. Let's see if Congress has the balls to ban political campaigning
> via telephone.

It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a right
to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay us
for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
callers.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > | The government does all kinds of unConstitutional things
> > | every day including the Patriot Act and the detention of so-called
> > | terrorists at Guantanamo without benefit of the full protections of US
> > | law.
> >
> > Absolute rubbish - the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional nor is the
> > detention of terrorists, not one of whom can lay any legitimate claim to
the
> > "full protection" of US law since they aren't US citizens....!
>
> Good point- I think that same argument was used a lot in support of WWII
> Japanese internment. Oh, how history has smiled on THAT!


Let's not mix our arguments. First of all, the Patriot Act has a LOT of
aspects to it -- some of which are very reasonable and justified. But most
people only think it has to do with privacy, etc. For that part, I say two
things:

1. 99.999% of the people that are worried about it have such an
overinflated sense of self-importance that it is laughable. Of 250 million
people in the country, do you really think the government cares what YOU
read or do or say or buy??

2. There is more "private" information floating around in corporate
databases and government records and on the Internet than you could ever
imagine. And some of that is a function of our open society. Court
records, for one, are public (for the most part). Property records are
public (for the most part). And so on. I can, at the drop of a hat, get a
list of all people in a given area with and income of $XXX or and other
variable. The only real thing the government gains is the ability to drill
at the data in the opposite direction and to combine disparate resources.


> > |That doesn't mean we bend over and smile with glee when they stick
> > | their dicks up our asses. If I denied telemarketers' free speech,
then I
> > | would be giving the government the ability to decide speech content
for
> > | me because they would enforce it against those groups which were
> > | politically unpopular and allow politically popular groups to claim
they
> > | were not really telemarketers.
> >
> > Pure, unadulterated, impossible to validate bull****.......telemarketers
> > have NO right to impose on anyone hiding behind the First
Amendment....which
> > isn't about selling products, but rather about protected political
> > speech.....!
>
> Actualy commercial speech IS protected. This is a democracy.

It has LIMITED protection. It may be regulated. And, no, the US *isn't* a
democracy.


> Somebody tell me when the left and right switched sides? I grew up in
> the 70's when the right supported law enforcement, then they suddenly
> became despised "jack-booted thugs". The Republicans of my youth
> were pro-democracy and anti-government interference in our lives.
> they want Government to regulate free-market advertising like
> telemarketing and control who and how I can f**k in my own bedroom.

I somewhat agree with you here. Personally, I'm tired of BOTH sides telling
me what I can't do or say or think. Or, at the very least, having their
adherents verbally assault those who disagree with them. This country
THRIVES on the free flow of ideas and STAGNATES when it is reduced to BOTH
parties spouting garbage at each other and blowing every little thing out of
proportion.


> This is exactly a free speech issue- either ban all unsolicited calls or
> none. Let's see if Congress has the balls to ban political campaigning
> via telephone.

It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a right
to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay us
for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
callers.

"[ a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a right
> to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay us
> for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
> there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
> callers.

I wonder if the free speech issue could be skirted if seperate no-call
databases were maintained- i.e. you could choose to opt out of
"commercial", "charitable", "political" or any combination, and any TM
would simply have to consult the appropriate list for their client du
jour's classification.

"[ a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a right
> to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay us
> for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
> there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
> callers.

I wonder if the free speech issue could be skirted if seperate no-call
databases were maintained- i.e. you could choose to opt out of
"commercial", "charitable", "political" or any combination, and any TM
would simply have to consult the appropriate list for their client du
jour's classification.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> > It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a
right
> > to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay
us
> > for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
> > there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
> > callers.
>
> I wonder if the free speech issue could be skirted if seperate no-call
> databases were maintained- i.e. you could choose to opt out of
> "commercial", "charitable", "political" or any combination, and any TM
> would simply have to consult the appropriate list for their client du
> jour's classification.

Here's the stupid thing. All of the telemarketers are grousing about the
DNC list. However, they aren't realizing that their call completion rates
should go up. Their closed sale percentages should go up. The revenue to
cost ratio should improve. The only people who should be complaining are
the actual phone jockeys themselves. But I would bet that the cream rises
to the top -- those that made an effort to be polite and helpful, etc., etc.
(and consequently had higher sales numbers) will be kept on and those that
were rude speed dialers will get canned -- as they should.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> > It isn't quite a free speech issue, but I agree that we should have a
right
> > to ban ALL unsolicited phone calls (unless the caller is willing to pay
us
> > for the call). It is true that inbound calls have no marginal cost, but
> > there is a fixed cost that should be shared by all inbound non-private
> > callers.
>
> I wonder if the free speech issue could be skirted if seperate no-call
> databases were maintained- i.e. you could choose to opt out of
> "commercial", "charitable", "political" or any combination, and any TM
> would simply have to consult the appropriate list for their client du
> jour's classification.

Here's the stupid thing. All of the telemarketers are grousing about the
DNC list. However, they aren't realizing that their call completion rates
should go up. Their closed sale percentages should go up. The revenue to
cost ratio should improve. The only people who should be complaining are
the actual phone jockeys themselves. But I would bet that the cream rises
to the top -- those that made an effort to be polite and helpful, etc., etc.
(and consequently had higher sales numbers) will be kept on and those that
were rude speed dialers will get canned -- as they should.

[email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote:
>"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You can't be serious..... I don't think I've ever seen a more wildly
>>incorrect analysis of the law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....!
>>
>>The "do not call" list ALLOWS each person to decide for him/herself to
>>either receive or not receive these overwhelmingly unwanted phone calls. The
>>vendor has NO right of "free speech" or any other to impose on people who
>>have publicly stated they don't want to hear from them....NO right at
>>all....!
>
>Too bad every court before which this issue will be heard is going to disagree
>with you, right up to the Supremes.
>
>The lawmakers will have to find a different way to deal with this. Even those
>spineless, money grubbing maggots in Congress, the Senate, and the Executive
>branch can't ignore 50 million pissed off people.

Well, I was obviously wrong about this...