Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List
DirkDaring writes "Yahoo is reporting that a U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national 'do not call' list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls. With around 50 million phone numbers currently signed up this could get very messy."
No matter if you agree or not, you must realize that this judge just ticked off roughly 50 million Americans. He must really, REALLY think he's making the right decision (or lives in his own little world...).
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
The article claims that the arguement was that a national do-not-call list violates free speech. How can a list which is opt-in violate free speech? These telemarketers are perfectly free to say whatever they like - I just dont them to call my house to say it.
.
This is ridiculous. It's my understanding that signing up for the national do not call list was about a person's right to privacy. Free speech laws do not protect someone in the case of harassment or stalking. The do not call list seems kind of like getting a restraining order on them. I hope this decision gets overturned quickly.
What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks. 50 million people can't be wrong. Its our phone number if we want it on a no call list it should be our right to put it there. The only time it would be over stepping a boundry would be if the FTC signed the numbers up without your permission.
With just his published home telephone number, that could amount to 50 million inquiries to see if he's interested in buying... I dunno... an old lawnmower... a stamp... an empty beer can.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
The court said the FTC didn't have the power to make this law and had overstepped its bounds...
Excuse me, but not only did Congress approve this, but 50 million Americans did, too. If 50 million Americans say a law should go through, then I'm thinking that it should go through. If 100 telemarketing companies (and their 2 paltry million employees) say it shouldn't, well, majority rules in a democracy. 25 to 1, we win.
There are still plenty of appeals to come... this is a district court, so it can still go up to the Supreme Court if it has to. Even if the FTC can't get it done, there is more than enough support in Congress to pass their own law or do whatever they can do about it.
IANAL, but I play one on
I went here to the FTC site on rulemaking re: telemarketing calls, and it looks to my eye like this is authorized by existing legislation. Also, I read this on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Amended) and how it derives from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
I guess this is just a case of the court being overly cautious here, but I fail to see how this is a restraint on Free Speech, since (a) the speech we are talking about here falls into the "commercial" category (b) it is "speech" directed into people's private homes without their authorization, permission or any expectation that they want to be bothered with it. Free Speech doesn't mean the freedom to yell your speech into my ear whenever you feel like it.
well the majority of american voters at one time supported the enslavement of black people. They also supported geneocide for native americans. I would say 50 million people could be dead wrong.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Hold on, hear me out.
If the Do-Not Call list goes into effect, then that will essentially be the Last Word on the subject. By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers. And, reversely, if you do NOT sign up, you are implicitly inviting them.
Now then, two points:
Number one, running a call center takes a LOT of money. The job is so odious that you can't pay minimum wage, you have to pay well above the standard wage for what is, otherwise, not a terribly difficult job. Plus overhead, huge phone bills, etc.
EVERY BAD NUMBER wastes money. A lot. We've seen those things about how you can screw TMs over by leaving the phone off the hook, etc. So, first of all, this would be a boon for the industry since it would weed out everyone they know would never, ever buy something over the phone. Far less wasted money in calling "Not Interesteds."
And, number two. Going with what I wrote at the top, you assume that any number NOT on the list is up for grabs. You then hire some market consultants and make God's own targetted marketing base. Every citizen not on that list, you start running background checks, sales figures, anything you can get at publically, and start fine-tuning your pitch to target those people specifically instead of taking the shotgun approach.
It would take a little setting up, but the end result would be a huge leap in actual sales, and less money wasted in worthless calls.
So, all this really just gives me even LESS pity for the DMA than I previously didn't have. Just like the RIAA, they're attempting to use the government and the court system to block a "scary" change to their business model, which would actually be a boon if they'd just open their eyes.
Such businesses do not deserve to exist.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Without the authority to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on the list, does the list become a telemarketer's call list (since they have apparently had access to it for some time)?
The problem with this assumption is that Congress created the FCC and the FTC. Congress defines the roles of these organizations. Congress picked the FTC to create the Do Not Call List. So I don't understand your assertion that the FCC should have done it. The Justice system has no Constitutional right to overrule the Congress on which agency should perform a function.
Let's imagine a world where the courts throw out the FTC do not call list based on the idea that the FTC has overstepped it's authority.
In such a world there are 50 million plus voters who all support an issue during a time of a very divided government. It's a legislator's wet dream. An easy issue with bi-partisan approval that constituents love. Just the thing to go into re-election trumpeting. Oh and cheap too. When congress gets done with it the DMA may be facing all kinds of restrictions beyond a simple do not call list.
Clearly, somebody is interested otherwise the calls wouldn't keep coming.
That's why it's an opt-in list. If you're interested, you don't sign up.
Username taken, please choose another one.
I don't see why your industry should be granted special protection or favors. I've had to switch lines of work at least half a dozen times because of shifts in the economic winds. I don't recall ever arguing that the government should go out of its way to protect a livelihood that I had enjoyed but was ditching because it wasn't covering rent and groceries.
It wasn't that long ago that the ownership of human beings was considered a stand-up way of doing business in this country. Get over it, and get a different job.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
You'd think the morons would recognize the fact that if someone wants to sign up for this list, that means THEY WON'T MAKE A SALE BY CALLING THEM. But no...they have to play the victim like every other half-baked fool in this country.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Yes, harassing an officer of the court is well looked upon by federal authorities. No thanks.
"You get what you pay for after all." --
The FCC regulates the nation's communications infrastructure. The FTC regulates, in part, how trade is conducted. If overuse of the telephone network's bandwidth were the primary problem created by telemarketing, it might make more sense for the do-not-call list to be in the FCC's domain. But that isn't the problem, so it makes perfect sense to give it to the FTC.
Regardless, as others have said, it's Congress choice, whether it makes sense or not. The only party who appears to be overstepping his authority here is the OK judge.
Besides, as we all know, the FCC is a captive agency-- i.e., it primarily serves the interests of the industry that uses public resources (airwaves, et al.) that the agency was ostensibly created to regulate in the public interest. So, assuming that you want to actually do something in the public interest, it's best not to give the job to the FCC.
This is not a constitutional issue. The ruling will be overturned. If for some reason it manages to pass the appeals process, there is a good chance that congress will simply make it a law. The 1st Amendment protects your right to speak freely to others in public places. It protects your right to speak out against the government with the spoken or printed word. It does not empower you to threaten or harass others. It does not allow you to enter a person's private property (either on foot or over electronic line) to sell your wares. That is commerce, not speech. There are enough rulings on this to be sure that do-not-call will eventually go through.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Before someone posts his phone number, I'd just like to remind everyone: You do NOT fuck with judges. Harrassing a judge, ESPECIALLY about a legal judgement he made, will get you into some SERIOUS shit. A good portion of our legal system is designed to protect itself and its human components, especially court justices.
Be careful.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Don't call the judge. Don't call his chambers. Federal judges are generally very honest, bright, and fair people who follow what they see as the law. I've read the opinion. He applied precedent to the facts as he perceived them. His opinion was that the FTC was not authorized by Congress to take this step. You may disagree, but his reading of the law was well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretation. He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought, or whether he might get lots of annoyed calls. His job is to apply the law, and he did his job. Now: if you disagree, the very best thing to do is to tell your congressperson. They pass the laws that authorize the FTC to act; all they need to do is pass on that authorizes the FTC to institute a national Do Not Call list and it's over for the telemarketers. This decision would no longer stand in the way. DON'T call the judge and make our side look as bad as the telemarketers.
The court held that it was "inappropriate" for Congress to have allowed the FTC to interpret the congressional orders on its own, saying it "raises serious constitutional questions."
Recent US Supreme Court decisions have ruled that Do-Not-Call registries are legal, so there is no free speach issue no matter what the DMA wants to argue.
The constitutional issue is the seperation of legislative and executive power. The congress granted the FTC the authority to make rules concerning telemarketing fraud. The court felt that this rule was outside the authority granted by congress. An executive branch agency does not have the ability to make law, but the do have the ability to make the rules used to implement a law. The court held that the FTC overreached, it tried to make law instead of rules.
Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.
It is important to our system of checks and balances that executive rule making authority not be unchecked.
Now: if you disagree, the very best thing to do is to tell your congressperson. They pass the laws that authorize the FTC to act;....
What??!!
You mean we shouldn't bother a judge who honestly applies the law -- even if he may not like the outcome --, and should instead ask our Congresspeople to get off their asses and do their jobs?
You mean, it's not the judge's fault that Congress prefers to only pass uncontroversial laws, while leaving the hard and unpopular decisions based on those laws to judges?
Why, you!!!
It shocks and exasperates me to see such a sober and insightful opinon on Slashdot! Please learn to post only knee-jerk opinions and "Beowulf Cluster jokes"; you're not up to our standards here!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Judges should be elected, and not appointed. They should go through the same process as any other official.
// End Rant
I don't need some idiot in some appointed power back when Lincoln was president, making rulings that slavery is still the way to go.
(yes, fecicious... but still you get the point)
Same thing here.. we have old farts in the system that don't even know how to use a computer, ruling on cases such as Copyright, that affect the lives of people who DO know how to use them.
So instead of this moron judge voting this way because the top two busineses in OK are telemarketers!!!! He should have voted the will of the people 50 million of them, and said FU to them. And he would have, if he was elected. But instead, he's there for good, and could give two craps about what the people think.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
You are mistaken - and you should realize that before you discourage everyone here from addressing grievances to their public officials.
While it is specifically illegal to threaten a judicial official (ie. higher penalties then for threatening an average citizen) calling a judge at any available number and registering your opinion about their work is entirely legal - though judges might wish it weren't. DO NOT harass this misguided individual - and if you don't know the difference between harassment and simply making a call DON'T do anything, but don't believe that judges are somehow above the law when it comes to public suasion.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
Actually his ruling just stated that it is perfectly legal for you to call him and try to sell him stuff. It's a matter of free speech. Of course I do believe if he says he's not interested and never to call him again, you must abide by that.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
The lack of decent net connectivity affect rural Oklahoma as much as anywhere else in the US, though in Tulsa, OKC, etc you'll have no problem getting a decent (in my case 3mbps/256kbps) net connection for cheap. On a business level, both WorldCom (yeah yeah) and Williams being in Tulsa meant plenty of carrier infrastructure is in place for fatter net connections.
Cellphone coverage and facilities could do with improvement but they work. Having come from the UK I'm not impressed with the US cellphone setup anyway, but that's another flamewar.
Analogue and digital cable TV are readily available though it's quite sad how even with the hundreds of channels offered by the latter, there's still nothing decent on half the time.
Good things about Oklahoma
Reasons to go elsewhere
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
This is a commercial matter, not a human rights matter. Morality doesn't enter into it; the majority should rule.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Yes, some households have several phone numbers per person. However, other households have one phone number for several people. Cell phones, second lines, etc are moderately common, but far from ubiquitous.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought
Last I looked, that is 50,000,000 phones, *not* 50M people. Big difference. Our phone here = 4 people.
Now, given that we live in a democratic republic, and forgive me for being blunt, but the people behind 50M phones ARE THE LAW. I'm sorry, but that's likely well over half, perhaps over 2/3 of the country. If we want the fucking do not call list, give us the fucking do not call list. To hell with the DMA.
Do you have ESP?