160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List

MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."

Comments

Here's a list of several state's DNC lists

[anotherone]

http://www.the-dma.org/government/donotcalllists.s html

Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh

Obligatory Junkbusters link

[Freaky Potato]

Junkbusters has a neat script to use when telemarketers call:

http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html

Gives them a run for their money and, best of all, if the telemarketer takes a wrong step, they open the company up to legal action.

This is funny...

[Danse]

E-mail bill
Bill # H.R.718

Original Sponsor:
Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st)

Cosponsor Total: 115
(last sponsor added 06/05/2001)
43 Democrats
72 Republicans
About This Legislation:
This bill would require accurate return addresses on unsolicited commercial e-mail. HR 718 would make it illegal to continue sending junk e-mail to a person who has asked to be removed from a distribution list, require unsolicited commercial e-mail to be labeled, and require ISP's to let their customers opt-out of receiving junk e-mail. The bill would also set a penalty for continuing to send junk e-mail after someone has asked for it to stop. HR 718 would also allow ISP's to sue spammers for $500 per message if they violate their antispam policy.

The DMA opposes HR 718 and has testified before Congress on the bill's onerous provisions.

They don't actually say what provisions they find to be onerous. Is it the fact that people can decide that they don't want to receive junk mail? Or is it the fact that they have to provide an accurate return address? Or maybe it's the fact that they would have to label their advertisements as what they are instead of trying to make people think they are something else. No... couldn't be any of those things. That would make the DMA seem evil :) Must be the fact that there is actually a punishment for violating these rules. That's gotta suck.

1st Amendment

[MacAndrew]

I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.

There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).

BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?

Popular in Colorado

[Bloodmoon1]

Here in Colorado, our DNC list has been taking subscribers for less than a year, and has been enforceable for about 3 months, and so far 1 million lines are on it. Not sure how many lines we have all together, but the state's total population is 4.4 mil, so I predict Mass. will probably get more than a third of their population on board in the end. And as for the legal challenges, several companies have tried to stop the list with no luck. It's actually kind of funny because it seems like they have some valid arguments sometimes, but the courts refuse to listen to them.