FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC

Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission will step in and enforce the national Do Not Call list for the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC is coming to the aid of the FTC because of the recent lawsuit filed against the FTC over the list."

Comments

Why get the FCC involved?

[Lord Grey]

Unless I misunderstand something, it seems that the primary complaint from the Denver court was that the no-call list was discriminating. Non-profit and political cold-calling was still allowed under the plan.

Fine. Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[GlassUser]

You must missed the fact that these are all by politicians. They exist for the pork and clout.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Valdrax]

You can't really do that. Much of the justification for the DNC list is that commercial speech is treated differently from political and other speech in case law. Non-profits are not participating in commercial speech usually, and political cold-calling is purely political speech, which has the highest standards against restricting. Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain, many of the usual rulings that allow for the restriction of even political speech on your own property also don't apply.

(IANAL.)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[aheath]

How does the federal do not call list compare to junk fax laws? Do junk fax laws exempt political and non profit groups? Would an opt-in don not call law be as constitutionalyy objectionable as a an opt out do not call law?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[|/|/|||]

Exactly. Congress made a big show of passing the previous bill, with the "50 million Americans can't be wrong," etc etc. I'll bet those same 50 million would be more than happy to see the exemptions removed.

Why aren't they making a big show of crossing out the exemptions? Gee, I wonder.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[swordboy]

Fine. Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

What country do you live in?

In the US, you can't make the representatives create laws that are detrimental to their own interests. It isn't a democracy - it is a democratic republic. This is how a republic works.

I agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge - this is discrimination. But it is better than nothing. And nothing is what we will get if this discrimination issue is upheld.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Fastball]

Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain,

Then why is it taxed as such?. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear. You can say what you want, but I have the right to not listen. The DNC beautifully expresses my desire to not listen.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[mkldev]

Junk fax laws are an entirely different animal. They make it illegal to make someone else pay for unwanted communication, in much the same way as it is illegal to hack some company's PBX system to use it as a relay for your long-distance calls. Your freedom of speech ends where it causes harm to others, and thus junk fax laws do not need to exempt anyone any more than anti-graffiti laws do.

Where there is no direct financial harm to the recipient, such as the DNC list law, these amount to nuisance laws, and fall under much closer scrutiny where freedom of speech is concerned, as well they should.

In a way, it is good to see this law receiving such close constitutional scrutiny. While the law's purpose is noble, if there are problems in the law, they need to be fixed now before they do actually prevent some form of speech that should be rightfully protected. That having been said, I suspect this law will hold up to scrutiny fairly well.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[dillon_rinker]

this is discrimination
Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.

And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.

To discriminate means to choose.

If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Izago909]

The whole freedom of speech issue is crap. The constitution guarantees the right to speak, not the right to an audience. My right to be left the hell alone supercedes someone else's right to speech.

If I want to find out about charities to donate to, I don't need their one sided sales pitches to educate me. Political calls are even worse because you know that their product will probably screw you. I used to have real fun screwing around with the people on the other end of the line, but no I'm just bored.

I remember back when people used to bother you at the door. The Jehovah's Witness's who never come by any more were the most fun. Nobody would fully understand acting interested over the phone in the nude, but it's the best feeling in the world when you open the door on that warm sunny morning and everything is hanging just right. They don't come around here anymore. It's a shame that it takes do-not-call lists to do the same for telemarketers; I'd rather do it in person.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[hellfire]

Junk fax laws are based on the fax that they tie up resources. Its primarily a matter of degree. While not everyone has it, caller ID and call waiting can help you avoid or block an incoming call. Also, it takes you a few seconds to hang up on a telemarketer where it takes you upwards of a minute to even determine that a fax is a junk fax while you are waiting for at least part of it to print. And how many people know how to hang up on a fax and stop it from printing? By then the "damage" is done and someone else trying to send you a fax is being denied until the line freed up. It tied up your line, and it's using your paper, dumping more of the cost onto you. Faxes can also be automated like spam and you could junk bomb a fax number into uselessness.

This affects businesses the most because of if you have massive numbers of fax machines, the cost is increased exponentially. Because businesses are involved its also why it probably got early attention.

I'm not sure if junk fax laws exempt these groups but I have a feeling they don't, because its about resource tying up, and not about the rights to free speech.

An opt out list itself is not unconstitutional. The problem is the judge has determined the FTC cannot regulate communications and has no authority to put up this list, and not that the list itself is unconstitutional. Commercial speech like this is not protected, and you have the right to not be subjected to it.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[MrResistor]

It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

You seem to have your "free as in speech" mixed up with your "free as in beer".

They are not the same.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Valdrax]

Then why is it taxed as such?. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

That's a non-sequitur. The link has nothing to do with your phone number being treated as your private property, and the "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with paying to use the medium in which it is expressed.

Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear.

Actually, no. The US Supreme Court does not in general support your "right" to shut out the speech of others unless they are on or using your private property or unless they are threatening you. They cannot force you to listen, but usually with the exception of commercial entities (like telemarketers) and people who present a risk to you (stalkers), you cannot force them not to try to talk to you. It would be really nice if you were right in my opinion, but case law on the books suggests that suppressing political cold-calls and charity fundraising would most likely be overturned.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[keester]

Very well said. Discrimation is NOT always illegal or *bad*, only some forms of it (e.g., race, creed, gender) for some situations (e.g. employment, education)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[avdp]

Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.

Don't get me wrong, I want this law to win very badly. But I don't think your argument is the ticket. In my opinion, corporations are not people and therefore don't get free speech rights, and therefore don't have a right to call me. But the Nike case (and other) kind of muddied that a bit.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Trepalium]

Even more to the point, back when all fax machines used thermal paper, it was EXPENSIVE to recieve junk faxes. Thermal paper rolls for those machines cost a lot, so the cost of junk faxes quickly added up. These days with inkjet and laser printer fax machines becoming more common, the cost is reduced, but still there.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[royalblue_tom]

You are so right. But it's not just their right to "speech". This is about their "right" to speak explicitly *at* me, against my wishes, using equipment that I have paid for, invading the privacy of my home while they do it.

Bastards.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Telastyn]

Come on! We're not talking about political opinion, or philanthropy, we're talking about solicitation.

Political solicitation, charitable soliciation either way it's still about money, not people or love. If they weren't soliciting, the DNC list wouldn't apply...

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination.

Actually, I believe that's considered homosexuality, but alas, IANAL.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... charities aren't about compassion? You seem like one of those misguided people who likes to equate everything with a dollar value.

Invalid Form Key: Chances are Slashdot's software sucks.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.

So does that mean I can call you every 5 minutes after you hang up on me? You do have a right to be left alone if you ask it. The DNC list simply is asking premptively to be left alone.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[jcr]

If the only issue holding up the do-not-call list is the exemption for "charities" and political parties, then I say let's go ahead and ban telemarketing altogether.

I don't need to have my dinner interrupted by United Way volunteers any more than the scammers who try to make me believe I've won a free vacation in Vegas.

-jcr

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[snol]

Why not have several do-not-call lists specific to commercial, non-profit, survey, political.... ? No discrimination, and people have even finer control over who can cold-call them.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Darren Winsper]

They can't come onto your property to talk to you without your explicit permission. Why should the phone be the same?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Ian Bicking]

Political speach isn't to the advantage of incumbent politicians. They do best when the bar is high, when speach is restricted, and when political expression is at a low.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

You callin Budweiser a man's drink? Pah! That's no beer. ;-)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[iabervon]

This whole thing is a huge mess at this point.

First, a Oklahoma City court says that the FTC doesn't have the authority to regulate phone calls (previous story). In response, the FCC takes over (this story). Also, Congress specifically give the FTC authority to do this.

In Denver, the court buys the discrimination claim (sort of oddly, since discrimination has nothing to do with freedom of speach). The FTC plans to appeal the ruling.

Here is where it gets exciting: the FTC is adding to but no longer publishing the list, pending the appeal of the Denver ruling. On the other hand, the FCC is ready to start enforcing it on Wednesday. The telemarketters have asked for help, but the FCC, the Denver court, and the Supreme Court member overseeing the Denver court have all turned them down.

This means that, on Wednesday, telemarketters will be unable to determine whether or not you're on the list and illegal to call, and all three branches of the government are unsympathetic.

I personally feel that we should all congratulate the government on the situation. Except, of course, that the government is busy acting like they didn't want this to happen, but the telemarketters forced it to be this way.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[El]

If they have to call me up to nag me for a donation, then I would argue that "charitable" donation isn't made entirely out of love -- it's partially done to avoid being nagged again.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[El]

If I can't get a call from a job recruiter because some telemarketer weenie has the line tied up, then I would argue there IS a severe economic penalty for that unwanted phone call. I would also argue that this is why I can't simply not answer the phone -- I'm expecting a call from a recruiter, who may or may not have blocked outgoing caller ID.

I agree, however, that it is far better to clear up any questions of constitutionality now. If the law needs to be changed to address those questions, then so be it.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[corbettw]

Actually, they can, sometimes. If you own a mall, and someone wants to pass out political flyers, you have to let them. You can set reasonable limits (like requiring people to get 24 hours advance notice, or stay in one central location instead of wandering all over the place). But because malls are, today, the equivilant of town squares 200 years ago, courts have ruled they are "forums for public discourse."

I learned this back when I used to volunteer to register voters. The orginization had a whole series of classes so you would know your rights, and had little flash cards to carry with you to enforce them. The best memory is when some store manager at a Safeway threatened to call the police to have me removed, even though I wasn't harassing anyone. I told him go ahead, and I'd have him sued for violating my civil rights, and then move into his house. He got pissed and stomped off, never to be heard from again. :)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not, but in direct comparison to Gatorade, it's a no brainer.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, no brainer. Go for the gatorade

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Darren Winsper]

OK, I didn't know that. However, my point is still valid in terms of private property such as your house, which is where a telemarketer is most likely to call.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[aheath]

I think that there can be financial harm resulting from unwanted phone calls. It may not be as easy to financially quantify this harm as it is to quantify the cost of paper and toner used by a fax machine. However, unwanted calls definitely waste time. If that time was to be used for a money making purpose, unwanted calls do have a direct financial cost.

I appreciate that the do not call law is being subjected to conistitutional scrutiny. I would prefer to see a uniform and constitutional approach applied to all unsolicited communications whether they are transmitted via postal mail, electronic mail, fax machine or telephone.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Supreme Court does not in general support your "right" to shut out the speech of others unless they are on or using your private property or unless they are threatening you.

I have the right, by any non-threating means, to deflect or otherwise squelch anyone's speech. If I am on public property, I could, for example, wear headphones or some other device that effectively turns off the unwanted noise. As for the case of telephone calls, courts issue Restraining Orders every day to keep person A from calling person B for any reason, because person A feels harrassed in some way. The DNC is in effect (by a different means) a way of effecting a restraining order against unwanted intrusion by telemarketing. I for one, consider telemarketing calls to be harrassment. And I hope the courts see it this way.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Genjurosan]

"They make it illegal to make someone else pay for unwanted communication"

So does the depreciation (wear and tear) on my private cordless phone, including the power expenditure involved, qualify?

Just curious....

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[ctk76]

Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

I think better way would be to have a check box in the call list indicating you would be willing to accept calls from charities and pollsters.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a democracy - it is a democratic republic... EH -- Wrong Answer.

We live in the United Corperations of America -- a Lobbyocracy.

The DMA knows damn well they don't have first amemdment protection but the bought [lobbyocracy] a judical member who now will fight for their cause.

The only way to stop it will be when the next cival war begins and all the whiny-assed corperations and political hacks that take their money, no matter how that money is given, are out of office and "Plan B" is instituted.

Don't ask what Plan B is but where we are today is definately not what the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that I watched rise up from the vault in 1968 at the National Archives, was written for. Nothing about "parties", "corperations", "Lawyers" and the rest of daily deluge of crap we hear and read.

My $0.0175us - thanks Dubya..............

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, get the FCC involved, get the American public involved! Put it to a vote and let the people decide on the do not call list. The only reason for not giving this option to the public is that the dcl bill would win by a landslide.

Telemarketing calls are no different than spam. The only difference is that the telemarketers don't normally ask me how big I want my johnson to be.

Are we not subjected to enough advertisement and noise in our lives???

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Tokerat]

If they have to call me up to nag me for a donation, then I would argue that "charitable" donation isn't made entirely out of love -- it's partially done to avoid being nagged again.

When have you EVER donated to ANY charity and not gotten a phone call from them twice a year for the next 5 years?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. I was a Witness for 20 years, and your type was my specialty. Nudity doesn't bother me at all. All you have to do is state that you do not wish to be visited...the Witnesses have their own "do not call" (that's actually what it's called) lists, and they only check once a year or so to make sure you still live there and are of the same opinion. If the telemarketers had their own voluntary "do not call" lists, then maybe this whole business wouldn't be necessary.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[StenD]

Twice a month. I donate to several charities through payroll deductions, and haven't been hit up for more donations. I receive thank-you letters from each of them, and occasional letters about upcoming events, but never an out-and-out solicitation.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[argmanah]

To discriminate means to choose.

If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly

The problem is that the discrimination is being applied to speech. The government is allowed to choose contractor A over contractor B. The government does not, however, have the right to choose speech A over speech B.

Unlike those of you who have worked yourselves into a rabid frenzy over the short term gain of having the DNC list implemented, some of us still actually remember we have a Bill of Rights, and we would like to preserve those rights our founding fathers fought so hard to give us.

There are legitmate arguments for going ahead with the DNC list. Some argue that there is an unreasonable burden on the receiver, like junk faxes. Therefore, it should not fall under protected speech. I can understand that logic.

But, to argue that it's somehow ok because it's "not as important"? That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. You may as well try living in China for awhile. I hear their government still decides what speech is important for their people too.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[volkris]

If it's unconstitutional it doesn't matter how many people vote for it, that's the problem.

Saying that the unconstitutional judgement is wrong because so many Americans signed up is simply irrelevent.

Telemarketing calls ar eno different than tv commercials. The only difference is that people have bitched enough that Congress wants to disallow these signals from coming on over the lines.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[jehnx]

A good while back, people came and did door-to-door saling. This was before the mass-calling that is done now. The way around this was that people began to put up "no solicitation" and "keep out" signs in their yard, and the marketers simply passed over these houses that they would have normally gone to to try and sell something at. This "Do Not Call" list is the same thing as the signs people used to put on their front door... it says "I'm not interested, so don't approach me," just like they used to. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that people do NOT like to be bothered about the same useless crap night after night.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[jehnx]

A good while back, people came and did door-to-door saling. This was before the mass-calling that is done now. The way around this was that people began to put up "no solicitation" and "keep out" signs in their yard, and the marketers simply passed over these houses that they would have normally gone to to try and sell something at. This "Do Not Call" list is the same thing as the signs people used to put on their front door... it says "I'm not interested, so don't approach me," just like they used to. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that people do NOT like to be bothered about the same useless crap night after night. (mods, please delete my post below. It's the same thing. Sorry for double post)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[stanmann]

Except, that the Witnesses can still knock on your door, or ring your bell. YOu can tell them to leave, To not come back, etc, but they can come by at 2am, One time. and as a religious group you can't have them arrested, or punished unless they come back.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[jason0000042]

The freedom of speech issue is crap. Corporations think that they are people, but they are not. They should not have the same rights that individuals have.

For example, I can say "Cigarettes make you strong. You will live forever if you smoke four packs a day." Philip Morris can not say that. There are limits on corporate speech.

If we can limit corporate speech in that way, we should be able to limit corporate speech in a Do-Not-Call-List way.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[ralphclark]

Why get the FCC involved?

Yeah, I agree. Get the FCC out of here! ;o)

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Darren Winsper]

I'm not up on US law, but isn't a sign saying "no soliciting" enough to legally require them to not do such things?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[stanmann]

As someone else mentioned a No tresspassing sign may be enough, but "soliciting" is defined by US code as trying to sell a product. Girl scout cookies, vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias... handing out pamphlets and being generally annoying about your personal religious or political opinion isn't soliciting.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

They specifically excluded non-profit and political calling because those types of speech have much more protection than commercial speech. They knew what they were doing.

Re:No

[(54)T-Dub]

No, the exluded those types because "Political parties" fall under non-profit.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to free speech. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected, because without freedom in political speech, a democracy/republic can not work.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Protecting a telemarketer's "right" to political speech through a device and service for which I personally pay is morally equivalent to protecting poliltical speech with a bullhorn on my front lawn.

~~~

Re:No

[(54)T-Dub]

Even free speach has it's bounds. For example, I believe that I have the right to kick protestors Off my private property. Since my telephone is on my private property I should think that the same rules apply.

Re:No

[Rick the Red]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the exluded those types because "Political parties" fall under non-profit.

I personally could not care less, thanks just the same. I don't want phone calls from any of these organizations. I already receive several charity/donation requests via mail and happily give to a local battered women's shelter. No muss no fuss.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why wouldn't they just make the law apply to Republicans and Democrats? If your view were correct, they'd lock out third parties in these laws.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Telemarketers are by definition not using political speech. They are selling things, making it COMMERCIAL speech.

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.

It is also the nature of a state of oppression to restrict political speech that disagrees with those in power. This is, iirc, the fundamental reason political speech is protected.

However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

Where I disagree with the Denver court is that I think the do-not-call list should be split according to preference, rather than a blanket rule that applies to all or none, depending on who signs up. I don't mind political and charity phone calls. I can shrug them off. There's these people that call every now and then wanting stuff for the blind, and I don't mind the calls. One of these days, they'll call whenever I'm about to dump a bunch of stuff, and they'll get it. But my wife actually minds these calls because they're intrusive to her. Point is, some people want these calls, and some don't, and if it's going to be an issue with the do-not-call list, then let's let the people signing up for the list decide what calls are allowed and what aren't.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected"

You seem to have no understanding of the Campaign Finance Reform Law.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you hadn't notice, they haven't the best of luck in the courts, have they?

Re:No

[Rick the Red]

that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

While I agree with your position, I believe Congress would say that if you don't want political solicitation phone calls, unplug your phone.

Of course, that's the telemarketer's position, too :-)

My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives incumbents an advantage.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think politics and charity are marketing, you are sadly naive.

~~~

Re:No

[typobox43]

That would never hold up in a court. That's why.

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives incumbents an advantage.

Actually, you're completely right about this, and I've gotten flamed a lot for stating this sentiment exactly. :)

Re:No

[zurab]

First off, I am in no way in support or associated with any phone/e-mail/anything else telemarketing; so here's my opinion.

freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.

Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.

Obviously, you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody's speech - you can ignore demonstrators on the street, you can say "no thank you" to a person offering you a brochure and keep walking, and you can simply hang up the phone, or ask to be taken off some list you somehow got on.

If you look carefully, the actual problem of telemarketing does not lie in whether speech over the phone lines is any of government's business, and how they can regulate it. The actual problem lies with your local phone service providers selling your personal information to anyone who requests it without your consent. You rightly mention that some people do not mind, or would like to get some types of calls, others none at all. The solution should be an "opt-in" type of system if you'd like your phone number shared for this purpose; otherwise, it should be illegal for phone service providers to share your information without your consent. It's simple and easy! Yet, it's not popular with big corporate interests, not good for campaign contributions, and, therefore, will never come up!

Re:No

[FosterKanig]

"Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement."

I'm not sure I am getting your point, but my TV has never woken me up. Newspapers never made me run up the stairs to read it. No book has ever made me wipe quickly on the toilet. There is a difference.

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

I'll start off by saying that I think we're actually in agreement, but you'll have to read the whole thing. :) So if I piss you off early, just hang in there.

This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.

Absolutely correct. The argument is frequently misapplied. As in here:

Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.

I'll take it again, one at a time.

Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations;

Nope, the First Amendment also says "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right to petition the government for grievances". Either/both of which can be applied to the right to demonstrate. Also, demonstrations happen in public places. You can't go *inside* IBM's building and demonstrate against them, but you *can* demonstrate on the street outside, which is a public place, publicly owned. My right to not have to listen to the demonstration does not trump the demonstrators' right to demonstrate. If I don't wanna hear it, I should walk away. What if I work for IBM and they're being demonstrated against them? Does my right now get totally trumped? Well, no. Not exactly. As far as rights are concerned, government's satisfied. i still have the choice to leave. As far as my personal choice, do I really want to work for a company that's gonna put me in that situation? Or is the company right, and the demonstrators wrong? I still have the choice.

it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration.

The public place argument stated above should do just as well here. I can say "no" to the guy (and have).

Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech",

Yes, they are. The problem with telephone lines has everything to do with who owns the telephone, the service, and the time that is being spent. More on this later.

like newspapers,

With newspapers, you don't have to read them. You don't have to buy them, and you're not likely to have significant problems for that choice.

TV, books.

Same. You don't have to watch TV, you don't have to read books. Furthermore, you have choices available in what you watch and what you read.

Your next paragraph said more or less these exact things, but less wordy.

Here's the difference. When my 1-month old son is sleeping, and a telemarketer calls, he wakes up my kid. My kid currently requires something like 16 hours of sleep each day, and that telemarketer is taking it from him. Yaddayadayada. More of this. There are all kinds of reasons a person calling me on the phone is disruptive. These same reasons don't apply to other forms of "speech", as you've mentioned. If my kid is sleeping, the TV isn't going to magically turn on and start pushing "VOTE FOR BUSH". Nor is a book going to just jump up, smack my kid awake, and start pouring out with all the reasons I should vote libertarian in this election.

I'm sure you've read all kinds of reasons phone calls are disruptive, and I'll let you use your imagination to identify more yourself. :) The logical solution now is to turn off the ringer. Here's

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither would restricting political speech over the phone!

Re:No

[DrFrob]

I was waiting for somebody to clearly state 90% of what I think about this subject. Thanks!

Re:No

[zurab]

Well, let me begin by saying that I don't disagree with most of what you say. But I do have comments.

First, as far as far as constitutionality:

if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations;

Nope, the First Amendment also says "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right to petition the government for grievances". Either/both of which can be applied to the right to demonstrate.

That's exactly what I am referring to. On one hand, you could have legislation prohibiting [expression of] speech which you don't want to hear, on the other hand - that same "speech" protected by the Constitution. If these principles were taken together, nobody would be able to talk to anybody without an express permission. And, again, only such permission-based "speech" would be legal; that and, monologues in your basement.

Also, demonstrations happen in public places. You can't go *inside* IBM's building and demonstrate against them, but you *can* demonstrate on the street outside, which is a public place, publicly owned.

Point taken. However, as in your latter example - if you lived in a city and there was a peaceful protest outside your apartment, the absense of your obligation to listen to their [protersters'] speech does not trump their free speech rights (of course, city code, nuisance, are separate issues). This is my main point towards your original argument. If you agree that telephone conversation is a form of speech, then you cannot apply the above argument. If so, then that same argument can apply to protesters and other speech. Again, public vs. private property point taken, but that's not a speech issue; could be related to trespassing, violation of privacy, and number of other issues.

Second, you misunderstood part of my argument. I did not intend to compare newspapers, TV, etc. in their entirety to telephones; obviously they are different; the comparison was to the extent of use of speech over any medium. If you argue that you don't have to read newspapers, books, billboards, etc. and you don't have to listen to TV or radio, then I can argue that you don't need to have a telephone either. Those are all services that you choose to use or not to use for your convenience.

Here's the difference. When my 1-month old son is sleeping, and a telemarketer calls, he wakes up my kid. My kid currently requires something like 16 hours of sleep each day, and that telemarketer is taking it from him. Yaddayadayada. ... ... [snipped all good uses of telephone]

I understand your situation, but the argument you are making here is not related to speech. Besides the suggestions of non-audible "ringing" alternatives - vibrating, or visible alerts for "ringing" telephone, I could come up with literally 100s of reasons why free speech is "bad", but none equal to (taken individually, or combined) why free speech is "good".

The telephone isn't a medium for "speech", it's a medium for "communication". It's not an advertising medium, and that is *not* what I pay for on my telephone.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but as far as government is concerned, person to person "communication" is speech. I don't see how government can brand person to person communication as NOT being speech in general and try to regulate it.

Last time I checked, it was illegal in some states for the phone companies to sell your information ...

That's the problem - some states, sometimes, some cases, etc. Unfortunately, that's not enough since telemarketing (and related privacy violations) is an interstate commerce and needs to be regulated as such, i.e. by federal government. It's ridiculous that I have to be on one commercial list that includes me, and another government list that excludes me to avoid being trapped by telemarketers. How about I don't want to be on any lists without my express permission? Why isn't that the "default"?

Re:No

[Genjurosan]

Second, you misunderstood part of my argument. I did not intend to compare newspapers, TV, etc. in their entirety to telephones; obviously they are different; the comparison was to the extent of use of speech over any medium. If you argue that you don't have to read newspapers, books, billboards, etc. and you don't have to listen to TV or radio, then I can argue that you don't need to have a telephone either. Those are all services that you choose to use or not to use for your convenience

I can't disagree with you more. I'm sure I can't name all the reasons; however, you DO need a telephone in this society. Applications for credit are a perfect example of this. Without a telephone number, most people can't get any credit. I know this as I work for a major bank in their CC department. Without a telephone, a person is truly blacklisted in so many different ways it's not even funny. Also like a car, you may argue that you don't need a car; however, in the United States, I can't disagree more. The only place where this may not be relevant is NY. But I don't consider NY to be the US *grin*. It's it's own country almost.

So do you need shoes? Or is it just a convenience? *grin*

Re:No

[kaladorn]

You said: Even free speach has it's bounds. For example, I believe that I have the right to kick protestors Off my private property. Since my telephone is on my private property I should think that the same rules apply. I say: Your analogy is weak. You can kick protestors off your property, but in order to do so, they already have to be on it. In the telephone part of the comparison, that's equivalent to hanging up the phone AFTER they've called you. You can do that. You don't have to be polite to these people. I'm not saying the DNC registry is a bad idea, but I don't think this analogy has much merit.

Re:No

[majorflaw]

I don't think you have it exactly right. The very ring of the telephone, from a telemarketer, which stops you from doing whatever you were doing is a form of trespass. I paid for my phones, the lines which installed them, and I pay for telephone service. My telephone is there to work for me. When someone uses my tools to disrupt whatever I was doing, I get actively pissed off. Perhaps the fact that a law was needed indicates that other people feel the same.

Re:No

[zurab]

I can't disagree with you more. I'm sure I can't name all the reasons; however, you DO need a telephone in this society. Applications for credit are a perfect example of this. ... [snip valid reasons why everyone needs telephones]

This is not the argument that was being discussed. The argument was about telephones as a means of expressing a delivering speech and it was being compared to other means (or media) of delivering speech. Going back a little bit, there are multiple ways that anyone can express or be at the receiving end of what is covered and protected as "free speech" by the Constitution. E.g. by going out on the street and talking to people, getting offered a hot dog from a small booth (hey! free pickle!), by browsing web, listening to TV or radio, reading books, newspapers, picking up a telephone, etc.

In other words, if you choose not to hear or listen to anybody's ["unauthorized"] speech (or any expression thereof), you'd better be blind, deaf, and paralyzed because that's not realistic. The challenge comes when you try to limit some forms of expression while justifying others. i.e. outlawing unauthorized commercial e-mails (not just bulk, even individual), or outlawing commercial unauthorized phone calls, etc. If you consider at least some part of this as fully protected "free speech" then simply oulawing that could have a tremendous impact. In that sense, if you look at telephones as one medium of expression covered under "free speech" there's nothing stopping you from outlawing newspaper inserts, TV and radio commercials, junk snail mail, etc.

Look at it this way - your snail mail address is at least as much, and, realistically, more important of a data than your telephone number. IOW, you need your snail mail address, and, if you are not homeless, you have one - you can't get rid of it. Does this mean that you can legislate to only accept "authorized" content delivered to your mailbox? It is unreasonable, IMO.

As I said, if this type of "authorization" scheme were implemented on other types of speech, then the only way to express yourself (other than the "authorized" way) would be to whisper to yourself in your own basement.

Re:No

[Genjurosan]

Agreed, I didn't address the argument, just a point that you made in the argument.

It's 2 AM, so I must keep it short.. Your comparison with the mail box is apples and oranges.. Like the other gentlemen pointed out, your mailbox isn't going to ring and wake your baby up when junk mail is sent to it. BTW, my wife is nurse that sleeps during most of the day.. Now imagine the telemarketers calling YOU in the middle of the night while you are in your normal sleep pattern like they do to her. She can't simply turn off the ringer, as I or her parents might have to call in the event of an emergency.

Your argument about outlawing newspaper inserts, TV, and radio commercials is all moot, as was pointed out earlier, I can easily discern between the junk and what's useful at MY leisure, in MY home, on MY time. With the practice of hiding who is calling, one can't do that. I can get up and not watch the commercials. I am not forced by a call to action to go pay attention to the commercials. The best point the other gentlemen had was the fact that the TV doesn't turn itself on to force feed me commercials.

It's not free speech, it's plain and simple trespassing in my opinion. What's more is that telemarketers have already accepted do-not-call legislation. This makes for prior precedence, so their case is bullshit. All you have to do is tell them not to call, and they can't for 10 years. Why fight a better system that offloads the do-not-call management to a government run agency?

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

That's exactly what I am referring to. On one hand, you could have legislation prohibiting [expression of] speech which you don't want to hear, on the other hand - that same "speech" protected by the Constitution. If these principles were taken together, nobody would be able to talk to anybody without an express permission. And, again, only such permission-based "speech" would be legal; that and, monologues in your basement.

Let me clarify my exact stance. It's in there, but I realize it isn't clear. The "right to not listen" isn't anywhere in the Constitution, so far as I know. It's implied by freedom of speech, but not stated clearly. You point out good reasons why it should be left out of the Constitution. It would give the government the grounds it needed to legislate against certain types of speech that it doesn't like. Let's also be clear what's in the First Amendment. It says (quoting from memory) "Congress shall make no laws respecting the freedom of speech, etc." I interpret that to mean that Congress can't make any laws for or against any type of speech, because on either side Congress would be "respecting" that speech in some way. It would be nice if that was the end of it, but the problem is that it is extremly ambiguous. Either of us could probably point out everyday examples of speech that is dangerous, kills people, or what-have-you.

Point taken. However, as in your latter example - if you lived in a city and there was a peaceful protest outside your apartment, the absense of your obligation to listen to their [protersters'] speech does not trump their free speech rights (of course, city code, nuisance, are separate issues). This is my main point towards your original argument. If you agree that telephone conversation is a form of speech, then you cannot apply the above argument. If so, then that same argument can apply to protesters and other speech. Again, public vs. private property point taken, but that's not a speech issue; could be related to trespassing, violation of privacy, and number of other issues.

Actually, this is exactly why I think that that sort of protest should be considered protected speech. :) The point of protesting is to get attention to an issue and hopefully get attention to solving that issue. Making noise outside my house would certainly get me interested in resolving the issue, if for no other reason than to quiet the protestors. So take a point on this one. :)

Second, you misunderstood part of my argument. I did not intend to compare newspapers, TV, etc. in their entirety to telephones; obviously they are different; the comparison was to the extent of use of speech over any medium. If you argue that you don't have to read newspapers, books, billboards, etc. and you don't have to listen to TV or radio, then I can argue that you don't need to have a telephone either. Those are all services that you choose to use or not to use for your convenience.

Actually, I didn't misunderstand, I don't think, I was being thorough. The differences between the mediums have to be considered when determining what is protected speech and what isn't. That's why there are laws about swearing on TV and on the radio, both of which are available to all people (with the right equipment), but the same laws don't apply to books. You have to be more active to find the swearing in a book, by reading it, but you can passively be exposed to this stuff on TV and on the radio. You have the choice to use them, or not, at home, but you don't have the choice to be free of them elsewhere (Costco used to have TVs put up at the checkout line. That really bothers me.) other than to stay home. Obviously, I disagree that the phone is something you can live without. In an extreme viewpoint, I would have to concede the point, but as another poster pointed out living without a telephone seriously limits things like getting credit and so forth. I put up specific reasons why you need a telephone that ca

Re:No

[zurab]

Your comparison with the mail box is apples and oranges.. Like the other gentlemen pointed out, your mailbox isn't going to ring and wake your baby up when junk mail is sent to it. BTW, my wife is nurse that sleeps during most of the day.. Now imagine the telemarketers calling YOU in the middle of the night while you are in your normal sleep pattern like they do to her. She can't simply turn off the ringer, as I or her parents might have to call in the event of an emergency.

Your argument about outlawing newspaper inserts, TV, and radio commercials is all moot, as was pointed out earlier, I can easily discern between the junk and what's useful at MY leisure, in MY home, on MY time. With the practice of hiding who is calling, one can't do that. I can get up and not watch the commercials. I am not forced by a call to action to go pay attention to the commercials. The best point the other gentlemen had was the fact that the TV doesn't turn itself on to force feed me commercials.

OK, I understand your point, but I still have to point out that this is not directly relevant to "free speech" argument. What I am pointing out is the delivery method does not make difference as far as speech is concerned (e.g. phone vs. TV). What you are pointing out is specifics of one method of delivery [of speech] vs. another, and then arguing that just because the delivery specifics are different we should outlaw one speech vs. another. Again, this is not related to "speech" per se, but may be handled another way. More on that later. Let me give you another example that I cited in another post - if there is a peaceful demonstration outside of your apartment, but you choose not to listen to their speech; but at the same time you need to keep your windows open so you can get fresh air because it's very hot and you don't have an air conditioner, do your needs then trump the demonstrators' free speech rights? No. You don't have an overriding right not to have to listen that would trump their free speech rights. It's not a free speech issue. It may be a public nuisance, or some city code issue, but not free speech.

It's not free speech, it's plain and simple trespassing in my opinion.

That is exaclty my point as I demonstrated above. Going back to where my argument started from, if you argue only from the free speech perspective, your argument will lose for there is no overriding "right" not to hear others' [expression of] speech which would trump those people's free speech rights. But while those people have free speech rights, they have no rights to trespass on your property, or unreasonably violate your privacy. If you go back and look, that's what I have been arguing. This is not a free speech issue.

Re:No

[zurab]

I'm not sure I am getting your point, but my TV has never woken me up. Newspapers never made me run up the stairs to read it. No book has ever made me wipe quickly on the toilet. There is a difference.

Yeah, well, I don't blame you for having that initial reaction. I don't think I was clear enough. Nothing that you can say as far as the specifics of delivery of any particular medium should on its own be a reason for outlawing "free speech" over that medium.

Hint: if you'd like to argue trespassing, or violation of privacy go ahead, but leave the free speech alone. It's not a free speech issue. If it was solely a free speech issue, telemarketers should win.

Re:No

[Genjurosan]

Not much else to talk about I suppose. *grin* Now that we both agree. FWIW, my argument was against some of your finer points. In truth I totally missed that you agreed that it wasn't a free speech issue, as I immediately had reaction to those finer details in your argument. I suppose if I had to make an association to free speech, it would be the fact that the phone ringing for commercial purposes would be violating my right to the tranquility of my own home. I'm not sure if that's free speech; however, I like to think of it as the right to free silence in my home. *grin*

Re:No

[Dashing Leech]

This cannot be a free speech issue. The phones and phone lines are privately owned. You own the phones, the phone company owns the lines.

Often people seem to get this notion that free speech means you can say what you want, when you want, where you want, and how you want, none of which is true. It certainly doesn't apply to privately owned equipment and media. I don't even think a law is really even required for this. If phone companies put in their contracts that their phone lines could not be used for telemarketing (even non-profit or political), any telemarketer whose phones are hooked up with that company would be in violation and could be sued. Of course, the phone companies wouldn't really have anything to gain by doing so, and certainly wouldn't all get organized at their own cost. Hence the need for the law.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Actually, you have no right to call a piece of ground YOUR property. Unless you meant your crotch? :)

Re:No

[hesiod]

> I'm not sure I am getting your point, but my TV has never woken me up.[...]

And your phone has never done any of those either. If you wanted to sleep, turn it off. You chose to hurry up the stairs or wipe. You could have ignored it just as easily. If you have caller ID, you'll find out who called a bit later. Even better, there's this grand new invention called an answering machine, which will record a message from the caller so you don't have to wait beside the telephone your whole life.

Don't get me wrong, telemarketers are fucking scum and I want them all to die horribly and slowly: I know some of them. But this argument doesn't hold much water.

Re:No

[hesiod]

> What if I work for IBM and they're being demonstrated against them?

That's why I take a sniper rifle to work. It makes my freedom to express myself more worthwhile when I can mow down some pot-smoking hippie protesters on the front lawn.

(settle, it's a joke -- I'm 1/8th hippie ;)

Re:No

[(54)T-Dub]

Ok, how's this : I have the right to prevent protestors (or solicitors) from coming on to my property.

Re:No

[JWW]

I already have the constitutional rights to not allow others to protest on my property. I have the right to not allow someone to hand me a brochure on my property. My telephone is my property, if I want a barbed wire fence on it with a no trespassing sign on it (AKA the do not call list), I should be allowed to have it.

When 50 Million households (possibly as many as 90 Million voters) want something, the politicians are going to bend over backwards to make it happen. It will be interesting to see what happens with this. I think that level of voter interest is the kind of thing that can spur on constitutional amendments. Basically its what majority rule is all about. I know many feel the rights of minorities are very important, but in this case the minority is the scum sucking telemarketer.

Re:No

[zurab]

I already have the constitutional rights to not allow others to protest on my property. I have the right to not allow someone to hand me a brochure on my property. My telephone is my property, if I want a barbed wire fence on it with a no trespassing sign on it (AKA the do not call list), I should be allowed to have it.

I am not disagreeing with your argument. In fact, my point has been as this issue relates to free speech, not to your property. i.e., you want the gov't to stop telemarketers not because you don't like their speech, but because they are trespassing, violating your privacy, etc. That's a valid argument to make, but not the point of my original argument.

I guess one sticky issue that telephone companies would argue is that telephone is your property, but telephone service is provided by the telcos; so, to a certain extent, it's up to them to set the terms of that service. That is why I feel there needs to be a federal legislation regulating the sale of personal information by telephone companies.

Re:No

[Cthefuture]

I think you're off base. The difference is in public versus private resources.

There is a huge difference between me not walking down a certain street because there is a demostration there or ignoring the person on the street spouting off about something and a large corporate entity with 1000's of employees (or fat 'Net pipes) ringing me up in my private residence. They are taking my time and resources without my consent.

"Public" stuff is fine when done in public or otherwise willfully accepted for private usage. In public you have a right to talk and I have the right to ignore you. However, my private time is mine unless I say different.

Re:No

[zurab]

I think you're off base. The difference is in public versus private resources.

If you read carefully, I am only replying to the argument affecting the "free speech" issue. Public vs. private property is not related to my argument; that is a separate issue and may be closer to invasion of privacy, trespassing, etc. My argument concerns the free speech aspect of the issue only.

As far as private vs. public property issue (which is separate from my original argument), while you may argue that your telephone belongs to you and is your property, telcos argue that they are the owners and providers of the telephone service and have discretion to set [at least some] terms thereof. It's a touchy issue, and I agree that it should be regulated; my main concern is that telcos are allowed to sell personal data of their customers without their consent and this needs to be regulated; instead of people now ending up on multiple commercial lists, AND a gov't list now on top of that. That's my opinion anyway.

Then after the judge overrules again...

[Anonymous Coward]

FAC
FBC
FDC
FEC
FFC
FGC
...
FZC

No Calls, Period

[darkstar949]

The Do Not Call list is a good step in the right direction, but I am paying for my phone and I don't want any calls from anyone unless I give them my phone number. There for why should it matter if it is a sales call or a charity call, they both should not be allowed to call me at home.

Re:No Calls, Period

[ewhenn]

Actually.....

In the US calls placed to a residential land line are paid for by the caller.

Calls places to a cell phone are paid for by the caller AND have the potential to use the cells mins.. hence why it is illegal to call cell phones for telemarketing.

Re:No Calls, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points I would mod you up. I could not agree more. Preach on brotha

Re: No Calls, Period

[Zooka]

The right direction indeed. And it's a bloody opt-out list, it's not like telemarketing is being made illegal.

Think about it: People who sign up are people going out of their way to say they don't want to be bothered. I.E. - people who aren't bloody likely to be interested in what unsolicited callers have to say or sell. When they call my home, they are wasting their time as well as mine. It's a win for both sides. They say that thousands of jobs will be lost. Well, another way to see it is that they won't be wasting so much time in calling people who are only going to reply that they aren't interested, or hang up, anyway. Let them call people who entertain the possiblity of hearing something usefull from the other end. Me, if it's not someone I know, I'm just hanging up on them. (and cursing them)

Re:No Calls, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so if I have a phone, and don't make any calls, it's free right? Hmmm, no it's not. So some of the money I paid, went towards paying for the service I receive, that they used to contact me.

Re:No Calls, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US calls placed to a residential land line are paid for by the caller.

OK, so if I don't pay my phone bill anymore, I'll continue to be able to receive calls but just won't be able to initiate them?

Re:No Calls, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

"...I don't want any calls from anyone unless I give them my phone number."

Invalid Form Key: Chances are Slashdot's software sucks.

Re:No Calls, Period

[retro128]

That will get very interesting since there is a goverment mandate to allow land line phone numbers to be switched to a cell phone.

When such a number is changed to a cell phone, does it automatically get added to a do-not-call database too?

It sucks to be a telemarketer these days :)

Re:No Calls, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the metered rate on my phoneline. When I had voicemail I was charged for each call forwarded to my mailbox. I ended up switching to an answering machine because I was paying about a dollar a day because of the telemarketing bastards calling all day.

Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[raehl]

Two government agencies cooperating to implement a consumer-popular policy?

Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?

Re:Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[jaaron]

Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?

Hopefully something very dreadful and permanent. :)

Re:Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[Sloppy]

Your real government is alive and well. It is following its age-old pattern of expanding its powers in the name of a popular cause.

TPS

[caluml]

I joined the TPS ( Telephone Preference Service) in the UK - hey presto, 20 calls a week, down to zero. Now I don't get any calls. :( Somebody ring me :(
But I miss the fun of being as rude and as crude as you like to the female telemarketters. Never stopped them calling though.

Re:TPS

[Anonymous Coward]

and I suppose you suck the dicks of the male telemarketers?

Re:TPS

[caluml]

Oh yeah, of course. Twat.

Re:TPS

[Squib]

Wait a sec, let me see if this is correct...

I can make it so that I can prevent telemarketers from calling me by following these steps:

1. Emmigrate to the United Kingdom
2. Get a British phone number
3. Use this wonderful service to make sure I never get any calls from telemarketers again...

Sounds simple AND cheap; I'll get right on it...

Re:TPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have to remember to submit a TPS cover sheet when you register?

Re:TPS

[caluml]

Yeah, it's so easy - I don't know why more of you don't?

Re:TPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I joined the TPS...

Did you have to fill out a TPS report? Don't forget to attach a cover sheet mmmmm k.

Re:TPS

[proj_2501]

Ah, so THAT'S what a TPS report is for.

Yes, I fixed the cover page already. Leave me alone.

Hmm..

[c_oflynn]

I wonder how many people will put themselves on some "OK to call" list, then cry foul when they get called saying they never agreeded, just to try and screw the company over?

Re:Hmm..

[ndevice]

can't happen if the do not call list takes precedence.

Great support

[Pedrito]

Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.

I guess that's what happens when an entire nation faces down an association with no lobbying skills. Now if we could just be this effective on a few of the slightly more important issues like civil rights, pre-emptive wars, and so forth.

Re:Great support

[yroJJory]

Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.

Sure they were. They passed a 500-page piece of legislation in the course of a few days. At least this most recent one was only a page, which means they might have actually read it.

Maybe.

Re:Great support

[keester]

-- "Wouldn't it be great if people could get to live suddenly as often as they die suddenly."-Katherine Hepburn

They do live suddenly as often, actually more so. Consider that the world's population is growing. Maybe I'm missing the point on this quote.

Re:Great support

[ScooterBill]

The California Anti-spam law that was recently signed is simply an expression of the people. Last time I checked it was "We The People" who made up the laws we live with in the USA. These laws didn't just come down with a lightning bolt on a mountain somewhere.

In other words, we can make up whatever laws we want. It's a scary thought and one that makes everyone responsible for our way of life.

Read, listen, vote, speak out and please pay attention!

Re:Great support

[pavon]

Now if we could just be this effective on a few of the slightly more important issues like civil rights, pre-emptive wars, and so forth.
Along those lines, it just occured to me how short it took to get the courts to look at this case. A judge in Oklahoma blocked the list citing that the FTC overstepped its authority. A judge in Denver found the same thing and further stated Free Speech concerns, because the government was determine exactly where to draw the line of speech is allowed into your house, if you sign up for the list. All of this before the list was enacted and simply because the Direct Marketing Association brought the issue to court.

Now how long has it been since the Patriot Act was passed? I was under the impression that we had to wait around until someone was tried under the new laws before it's constitionality could be challenged. But the telemarketers didn't wait till they were sued for calling someone on the DNC list before challenging it's validity. What's the difference? Can someone like the ACLU or just file a case in court questioning the Patriot Act? I'm assuming not, or else someone would have done so already. But was is the legal differentiation here?

Re:Great support

[Lord_Dweomer]

Wow, no kidding......if this isn't one of the biggest "FUCK YOU"'s our our government has ever given an industry in the US. I mean, seriously...FTC gets shot down......so whats this? Big Bro FCC steps into the ring and lays the smackdown. I swear, sometimes life is a little too much like tv.

Re:Great support

[tilrman]

... with no lobbying skills ...

Did anybody else have this sinking revelation? Instead of getting sales pitches at dinner, we'll be getting political pitches to repeal the DNC list.

FCC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see the FCC side with the little guys. Truly a benevolent concern.

Re:FCC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lez get hit awn!

sexfeatures.org

Where you fuck fantasy bitches

Makes sense

[SparklesMalone]

Since the phone line is paid for by the person receiving the call this is a problem of communication, not trade. If the FCC had this job from the get-go maybe the exemption for charities and political groups wouldn't have been considered. After all the FTC has no authority over those groups.

I'm no fan of W but this makes sense.

Re:Makes sense

[royalblue_tom]

Except of course, they would have then argued the other way - that the telemarketing firms are comercial entities advertising products for sale, and so are governed by the FTC.

The exemption will always be there - the FTC considered it, and dropped it due to supreme court precident. The recent court ruling seems to show no understanding of the comercial vs non-comercial speach debate.

Re:Makes sense

[SparklesMalone]

But it seems that if you avoid the unequal treatment AND you focus on the line belonging to the call recipient you can say it is no different than a "no solicitor" sign next to the front door. I know, I know, the line belongs to the phone company. But by paying a fee for its exclusive use I am effectively renting it, and that's the equivalent of a "no solicitors" sign on an apartment door.

Sometimes the easiest way to win a fight is to avoid it.

IANAL but in this new ground we're breaking I'm not sure it would help to be one.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would start comparing it to "no trespassing". In my state I can shoot people who don't obey that.

The line belongs to me from the box on my house in.

More Protection??

[AVGVSTVS]

Please enlighten me as to how different forms of speech have more or less protection, the 1st amendment is rather vague on that regard, as it seems to protect ALL speech. Either way, the do not call list has nothing to do with impeding free speech.

Re:More Protection??

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not protect ALL speech at all. There are a number of limitations. The Supreme Court recognizes a difference between commercial speech and other forms of speech:

From Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980)

Nevertheless, our decisions have recognized "the 'commonsense' distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. ... The protection available for particular commercial expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation."

Re:More Protection??

[crc32]

You ask how come different forms of speech have different levels of protection? Simple example: shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime, but it's also speech. It has much less protection due to the potential injury. The first amendment is balanced against the rights of others, with the presumption that speech is ok. However, this does not mean that all speech is ok. See Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir. 2001).

Re:More Protection??

[Sphere1952]

Very good! However, this is still not a completely settled issue. The Supreme Court has been very slow to allow any restriction of truthful speech, even commercial, based upon content -- as in, they've never done so except with regard to pornography (which they seem to be backing away from over time). At the same time, they have recognized a right to privacy (abortion clinic cases) and noted the right to free association.

The end result I'd like to see is a list various categories which I can elect to receive or not receive (e.g. commercial, religious, charitable cash, charitable other, political). I don't know how to fit this into the legal landscape, but I'd ban all but charitable other from my house. (I'm willing to give old clothes to charity, and that is about it.)

Re:More Protection??

[Sphere1952]

"shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime"

Not exactly. If there is a fire it is not a crime.

More interesting in this regard are the decisions regarding insurection from the 1950s. Basically the Congress/states can make laws against speech which leads to immediate action, but not against speech which might in the future lead to action.

Re:More Protection??

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. If there is a fire it is not a crime.

Or if it's a fire practice.

Check their balances

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some needs to balance their checkbook.

first amendment

[ih8apple]

From the New York Times(no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

Re:first amendment

[xcomputer_man]

According to what I heard on the news this evening, the FCC will be enforcing the list *in spite of* the courts.

This is beginning to get very interesting. After all, the executive branch is supposed to be the judiciary's teeth for enforcement anyway!

"50 million americans" vs. the opinion of a single benchwarmer...

Re:first amendment

[KanshuShintai]

"citing First Amendment grounds."

I thought the First Amendment didn't protect commercial speech (e.g. Big Tobacco, etc.)?

The rights of the individual take precedence to the rights of corporations, why doesn't anyone who is supposed to remember that remember it?!

Re:first amendment

[jimmcq]

The first ammendment gives you the right to say whatever you want to willing listeners. It does NOT give you the right to force the unwilling to listen to you. The Do Not Call list is just a way for people to let telemarketers know that they are unwilling. How does that violate the First Ammendment?

Re:first amendment

[Jason1729]

That argument makes no sense though. The first amendment makes it illegal for the government to pass laws preventing telemarketers from existing at all, but it doesn't prevent people from refusing to hear the messages in a legally binding way.

The same arguement can be used to say the right to make harassing phone calls is protected free speech. In that case, all restraining orders are invalid because they violate the first amendment.

The do not call registry can be taken as a set of restraining orders that individuals apply for to make it illegal for telemarketers to contact them.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:first amendment

[elmegil]

It obviously doesn't, but it has to go through the process now to prove it. I still don't see how that gives the FCC any more power to enforce than the FTC, unless someone thinks the FCC pulls more "clout" somehow.

Re:first amendment

[TheRealStyro]

Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

Go read the very good book "Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights" by Thom Hartman for more information. Link.

Re:first amendment

[Telastyn]

I certainly hope that the FCC is not successful. A government that acts above law leads to nothing good.

I certainly hope this goes through the courts nice and speedily, and that they allow the list. After all, how many "No solicitation" signs are posted around the nation? I'm not up to snuff on case law, though I can't imagine they haven't been tested in court yet... Why would a near identical sign put up regarding telephone solicitation be any different?

But most importantly, this sort of thing should follow the process.

Re:first amendment

[shaldannon]

I'd guess they think since the FCC is responsible for governing communications that it has more jurisdiction...but as you say, it still has to wade its way through the court system.

Re:first amendment

[zerocool^]

One thing to keep in mind is this: It's not 50 Million Americans. It's 50 Million Phone Numbers.

Roughly 300 million people live here. But, take out cell phone numbers, and the number of "numbers" that telemarketers can call currently is far less. 50 million is a huge chunk of that.

Consider that, in my apartment, we all have a cell phone, but it's already illegal to call a cell phone. But, we only have 1 number for the apartment. That's a 4:1 ratio, and i suspect this is duplicated quite a few places.

~Will

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Once and for all - this should not be a First Amendment (free speech) question. Calling me, whether hand dialed or machine dialed, involves a physical act that is not speech. If I choose to pick up the phone, they may start speaking. If I choose not to pick up the phone, just the ringing (the FUCKING ringing) IS NOT SPEECH. It's annoying me and disturbing my right to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE!!!!!!

Re:first amendment

[civilengineer]

I wonder if its actually 50 million americans. If its 50 million american 'phones', it could mean up to 150 million americans(@ 3 people for phone). Anyone knows more about this?

Re:first amendment

[HardCase]

From the New York Times(no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

The judge ruled that the FTC could not enforce the do not call registry. He didn't say that the FCC couldn't enforce it. I guess what that means is that one of the telemarketers (or an organization) will then have to get another ruling regarding the FCC.

Regardless, I'm sure that the Supreme Court will end up with this one. And I suspect that they will say something along the lines that this is not a speech issue, but a commerce issue and that the FTC can enforce the list.

-h-

Re:first amendment

[mcelrath]

This whole thing is a clear violation of the first ammendment. We are attempting to legislate that some groups may express their views by calling you and others may not. That we like one group and not the other does not matter, it is a clear violation of the first ammendment. That our representatives don't understand this is a sad, sad statement about how well they understand the constitution.

The correct way to solve this is to de-classify corporations as individuals, and create a new category for "corporate speech". This may very well require a consitutional ammendment. There are clear distinctions between the things an individual says and the things a corporation says and the law needs to reflect that.

"Corporate speech" laws could easily cover telemarketing as well. The same issue is closely tied to issues of campaign finance as well. Corporations simply should not have equal rights with citizens because they do not have equal responsibilities or abilities.

The solution to telemarketing is to remove first ammendment protection for corporations.

• References:
• Nike's corporate speech: overwhelming the voice of citizens
• Nike settlement leaves corporate speech unresolved
• ACLU & Nike vs. Reason
• A proposal for a consitutional ammendment

-- Bob

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's more like 200 million people? Even better. That's more than vote in elections! (50 million is "merely" more than voted for either Bush or Gore.)

Re:first amendment

[bobdobbs3]

While I totally agree that we need to de-classify corporations as persons (probably the most pernicious single act undermining of our democracy in the last century - and nary a peep!), I don't agree that telemarketing calls are inherently protected speech.

They may run their script about how I've won a trip to a magical kingdom run by a giant leprosy-spreading rodent all they want - but when the pipe it into my house - thus disturbing the quiet enjoyment of my home, that is not protected.

If you think it is protected, tell me your address and I will station myself outside your home with my bullhorn and reiterate my position until you see that this too is harassment.

If they wish to print in the paper their tripe, they may do so (they're called ads).

If they wish to do their speil on the TV or radio, same deal.

If they wish to sit on the town green and do it there - annoying, but protected.

If they - or a heavy breathing mastubator - wants to call me at all times of day or night despite my requests to the contrary - that is harassment, and not protected.

Re:first amendment

[DavidBrown]

Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

Sorry, but that's a simplistic view of the law aimed at enforcing the assumption that corporations are unnatural entities that we can completely control. Corporations ARE unnatural entities, but they have the same rights in our society as individuals. This is admittedly silly and ultimately unjust, but it is the law, until we change the law.

Re:first amendment

[Courageous]

Well, to be a little nitpicky, no coporation has ever called you, you know. :)

C//

Re:first amendment

[Fedhax]

Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

You are right that there is no mention of corporations being protected by the Constitution, but you are wrong that it is strictly a concoction of corporate lawyers. We have the power of "Judicial Review" to thank for this situation.

"The major event that truly fostered corporate power was another Supreme Court case, this one in 1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This baffling ruling defined a corporation as equivalent to a natural individual person for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution - that is, all corporations were entitled to the same rights that individuals had. Given corporations' vast financial resources and considerable legal advantages, this ruling actually gave them far more power than the individual. Today, however, this definition of the corporation is seen as perfectly natural, and is seldom questioned."

(Taken from here)

Re:first amendment

[david_reese]

Corporations ARE unnatural entities, but they have the same rights in our society as individuals. This is admittedly silly and ultimately unjust, but it is the law, until we change the law.

Hey, why don't you read the link? It's pretty clear that in our jurisprudence oriented legal system, the "law" concerning any specific thing may change at any given time based on new rulings. What the book says, probably more eloquently than me, is that the "corporations have first amendment rights" has simply been assumed, and not challenged in court. And hell, even if it is challenged and upheld, later rulings can weaken or reverse that position (ie: what pro-lifers right want to happen to RoeV.Wade). Too bad that Nike case was swept under the carpet...

Re:first amendment

[Daetrin]

This is beginning to get very interesting. After all, the executive branch is supposed to be the judiciary's teeth for enforcement anyway!

Or, in the words of our illustrious 7th president, Andrew Jackson, "[Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

I want to be free of telemarketers as much as the next person, but i hope the executive branch doesn't defy the Supreme Court if it goes that far.

Re:first amendment

[aardvarkjoe]

Why do people keep on bringing up "corporate speech" in relation to this, as if it was relevant? Do you really think that we want to have Bob from the used car lot calling us any more than Harry from Wal-Mart? Whether speech is "corporate" or not is irrelevant to this matter. "Commercial," maybe, but not "corporate."

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree! Telemarketers have the constitutional right to call me and invade my family time at 8PM??

We should have the right to walk into their homes at 8PM and push some shit box product on them.

The people have spoken, otherwise this "do not call list" would never have been thought of.

40 million americans can't be wrong.

We should all have the fundamental choice of receiving annoying calls or not.

What a noble profession it is to be a telemarketer or a spammer

Re:first amendment

[mcelrath]

You are arguing semantics.

I intend commercial = corporate.

Either case, a corporation is trying to sell you something. Individuals almost never call you cold for any reason. That the law does not recognize the difference between an individual and a corporation is the problem. If it did, it would be easy to separately regulate individual commerce vs. corporate commerce. There is almost none of the former, and frankly if a guy in my neighborhood wants to cold-call all his neighbors trying to sell his '87 Caprice, I don't really care. It's a self-regulating situation because he'll piss off all his neighbors, and can only impact a small number of people anyway.

-- Bob

Re:first amendment

[aardvarkjoe]

Either case, a corporation is trying to sell you something.

This isn't true. Not every commercial business or venture is a corporation. Your statement that you want to "de-classify corporations as individuals" implies very strongly that you're not talking about a "commercial speech" law, you're talking about "corporate speech." (If that's not true, then wanting to get rid of "corporate personhood" is irrelevant.)

More importantly, I completely disagree with the statement that somebody should be allowed to spam my telephone just because he doesn't work for a corporation. That's just stupid. I don't want anyone calling me trying to sell me stuff; I don't care about the legal status of his business.

Where are the libertarians now?

[Thinkit3]

Maybe the ACLU should get into this. How can a libertarian argue for laws that give more ability to sue?

Re:Where are the libertarians now?

[soft_guy]

If the ACLU were involved, it would be (as always) on the side of the constitution. So, they would probably be on the side of the telemarketers. They probably figured the case was being adequately pursued.

Re:Where are the libertarians now?

[metalligoth]

Actually, I am a Libertarian, and as a Libertarian I believe in a homeowner's right to defend their property. Therefore, I think that while maybe the government getting involved isn't the best solution, it is one that might work. In a Libertopia I would say that people should be legally allowed to charge every telemarketer with trespassing and have them arrested, and also be able to sue them.

Or, we could go the easy route and make it legal to shoot them, as they are coming onto our property without permission! ^_~

Happy Dance

[thomas.galvin]

One of the very few instances of a beuracracy not getting in its own way. I suppose, if you get enough people angry, the government can still be on the people's side. Happy dance!

Now if we can hurry up and get that 1st ammendment case overruled...

Seriously, though, high marks for pretty much everyone involved in this one.

Free Speech? How About Free to Not Listen!

[Urantian]

The big argument against the do-not-call list has been the violation of free speech on the part of the solicitors.

That might make sense. But, what about the right to not listen if we so choose?

I think the real argument is that the solicitors will lose potential money, due to having a smaller call list. However, there is no law against that.

Plus, why limit the do-not-call list to just those involved in commercial purposes. If I don't want to hear from solicitors, that includes people raising money for political and non-profit purposes. Whether or not they are commerical, they are still looking for money.

Opt-In and Opt-Out

[maliabu]

is it more difficult to enforce a Opt-In system rather than the Opt-Out (ie DNC-list)?

i think all communication mediums (email, phone, mobile, post, IM etc) should be just that, so that if i want to hear from you, you'll get my details, otherwise please do not disturb, or the offenders can be fined.

at the moment, the 'victims' need to take the efforts to Opt themselves out, which isn't right.

Re:Opt-In and Opt-Out

[stripe]

I got so tired of marketing calls that I no longer answer my phone at all. Only time I use it is to call out. In fact I disconnect my phone line on occasion in the evening. I have an answering machine that automatically picks up on the 1st ring and that I occasionally listen to. More often than not I just erase its entire contents without listening. This has spread to my mail and email. I only look at my mail at 1-3 month intervals now. I pay my bills online so rarely look at snail mail and shred most of it without looking. Similarly with email.

Re:Opt-In and Opt-Out

[EzInKy]

I doubt you're alone here. I don't answer a call unless I recognize the number and skim the messages for anyone who may have called that is important. Email has become nearly completely useless, thank goodness for throwaway accounts.

The worse though is web page advertising. Banners never really bothered me and I would occasionally click on one, even buy a product. Now that they've become so obnoxious I use every trick I can think of to get rid of them.

Ever notice...

[petermdodge]

... how quick people are to get spam? The vote in the American government was all but unaminous, and look how quick it went to effect. I'm happy for Americans that the government has been so descisive in an issue that's plagued us all for far too long. Now I must wait for my Canadian MPs to get a similar bill together. Until then I just have to have fun with the telemarketers.

Re:Ever notice...

[perp]

There is a Canadian do-not-contact list by the Canadian Marketing Association.

The CMA says that 80% of direct marketers in Canada belong to their organization and are apparantly obliged to honour this list.

Re:Ever notice...

[ibpooks]

With any luck we can rid the whole continent of the telemarketing scourge!

Re:Ever notice...

[petermdodge]

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! I'll happily go sign up now :)

political campaigning without phone banking

[taxman_10m]

Can it be done?

as long as...

[laydros]

somebody can enforce this, i will be happy. and hopefully this will lead to some sort of fight against spam also

Re:It will never succeed.

[Jordy]

Uh. The whole idea that companies run the government is absurd and frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing it from fear mongers.

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out, corporate taxes would be nullified, companies would have the right to vote, environmental protections would go away and corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.

Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.

I have an idea

[PD]

Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.

Re:I have an idea

[reboot246]

Brilliant! Sounds good to me.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given how fast Congress acted, I have to think that telemarketers are approximately as popular as terrorists...

Speaking of which, I wonder if those two judges will be changing their home phone numbers any time soon? I can imagine that there must be plenty of people who want to excercise their 'constitutional rights' to talk to said judges... I'm just glad I don't work there... :)

Behold...

[MrLizardo]

And you shall know that the end times have arrived because US government agencies shall cooperate to implement things the tax payers actually want! And Apple shall have the fastest computers available! Linux will go mainstream! BeOS will come back from the dead! Behold and repent for surely we have reached the end of times!

(Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)

-AX

Re:Behold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is that:
1. Become a prophet
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Behold...

[Archangel Michael]

NO, That would be Prophets for Profits and NonProfit.

=:-D

Re:Behold...

[Oloryn]

(Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)

Prophet, or Pathet?

I'm supposed to feel good about trusting this ...

[burgburgburg]

to Michael "One News Organization to Rule Them All And In the Darkness Bind Them" Powell?

I'm unplugging the phone and going back to carrier pigeons.

Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

The subject says it all.

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[OneFix at Work]

Won't happen...a "do not call" list works because the companies calling/selling the service are operating inside the US (with unlimited long distance phone lines).

The industry is already regulated and it would not be cost effective for a company to call from outside of the US.

Spam is a different ball game. The companies are already outside of the US for the most part. The only way to enforce this would be to forbid US companies from doing business with known spammers...however, as soon as a european travel agency started spamming ppl in the US, the US travel agencies would cry foul...

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

You're close. The way to fix it is to forbid people (i.e., customers) from doing business with spammers. Order viagra online and go to jail!

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[William Tanksley]

Have you thought about that?

The problems are manifold. Do you get locked up because a person you had ordered from spammed? Do you get locked up if you ordered directly because of a spam? How do they prove that you ordered because of a spam?

And would this have the same success as the War on Drugs?

-Billy

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

Have you thought about that?

Of course not! This is Slashdot!

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you thought about that?

Of course not! This is Slashdot!

Well, you got that right. Next step is to create a sourceforge project and get it posted to the front page.

Oklahoma judge that stopped DC list = Redneck !

[zymano]

How can you say that telemarketing is a violation

of free speech ?

It's ludicrous !

As for telemarketers losing jobs and economy

taking a hit of 3 billion dollars.

I say thats just the breaks.

The job situation in this country must not be

great but we don't want these types of jobs .

Where did our manufacturing jobs go ? China ?

Offshoring jobs and telemarketing are all tied

intogether in a bizarre way. We have lost so

many tech and manufacturing jobs that we have

become desperate. Not good.

Re:Oklahoma judge that stopped DC list = Redneck !

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst Haiku ever.

What about the 1st Amendment Challenge

[elhondo]

What I like about the FCC enforcing the rules is that they don't even consider what appears to be the stronger challenge, base on freedom of speech. It's like Powell said, "Well, obviously the problem isn't running roughshod over the constitution, it's a matter of WHICH federal agency is going to run roughshod over the constitution." Not that I think it's a free speech issue, but shouldn't that be up to a court?

Re:What about the 1st Amendment Challenge

[Hank Reardon]

A First Amendment challenge will (most likely) fail. There's already been several cases that have ruled commercial speech not protected under the First Amendment.

Re:What about the 1st Amendment Challenge

[rev063]

A First Amendment challenge will (most likely) fail. There's already been several cases that have ruled commercial speech not protected under the First Amendment.

Don't be so sure -- a quick Google search on "commercial free speech amendment" gives a number of articles suggesting commercial speech is protected:

On the pro side: Over the past few decades the courts have taken a different view, granting free speech rights to commercial interests

On the con side: the US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the athletic apparel giant of a California Supreme Court decision last year that shocked the corporate world by saying basically that "commercial speech" is not entitled to the same degree of protection as "free speech"

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest.

Re:What about the 1st Amendment Challenge

[Hank Reardon]

Sorry, never meant to imply that it's clear cut. I do believe, however, given the climate in the legal system and the recent rulings you quoted, that it is likely. However, as is so often the case when dealing with the courts, nothing is certain.

As for commercial speech being protected, I wouldn't go so far to say that it is protected; rather that a recent ruling overturned the protected status that was granted earlier.

At some time in the future, I'd expect that the pendulum would swing again and commercials would again become protected under the First Amendment.

Re:It will never succeed.

[petermdodge]

If you define evil as unfeeling and not worried about morality, then about 8/10 or 80% of the companies out there are evil.

(I personally praise the other 20%)

So I don't get what you're talking about. It's not about what's helping the good of humanity for those big corporations. It's about how to better line their wallet.

let the real spamming begin

[akb]

As soon as all those hucksters have to close down their call centers what do you think they are going to do? Hmm, maybe try another form of direct marketing? I hear this new fangled Internet thing isn't saturated yet.

They have not yet begun to spam.

Why wouldn't they comply?

[tessaiga]

I found the following quote particularly interesting:

The Direct Marketing Association, representing more than 70 percent of the telemarketing industry, asked its members last week to abide by the list. Nearly 200 of the largest members have voiced no objection to the request and some have actively pledged to comply, association spokesman Louis Mastria said Monday.

Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this. Effectively it lets them weed out calls to households who don't want their stuff that would waste their call times, and let them focus on spamming people who are more likely to be responsive. Given how much the telemarketing industry is focused on cranking up their purchases-per-minute, it's not surprising that many companies agreed to abide by the list.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[xenoweeno]

There is also a small bit of fine print that you would think would motivate them quite a bit: it's federal law.

The fact that they will hem and haw and weakly "ask" it's member to comply, even in the face of that fact, says something about the people we are dealing with (or, I guess, who are trying to forcefully deal with us.)

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[rgmoore]

The reason that some telemarketers don't want to abide by the list is that people aren't as rational as you'd think. There are some people who simply have a very hard time saying no to telemarketers when they call, even though they know perfectly well that they don't need what the marketers are selling. Those people are the ones who will benefit the most by not being called, since for them it's not just a matter of being disturbed but also of spending lots of money on unnecessary stuff. It's precisely those people who the telemarketers most want to reach, so the temptation to ignore the list is very strong.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[SphynxSR]

I saw on one of the news stations that this same association also says they are the reason your long distance bill is so cheap. So getting rid of so list will make your long distance bill go up.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[ChaosDiscord]

Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this.

While that's the common sense case, it fails to account for the fundamentally irrational behavior of people. People know they should eat healthy, but they eat junk food anyway (mmmm, junk food). They know they should exersize, but they put it off. And they know that they shouldn't trust random strangers who interrupt them to with telemarketing offers, but they actually buy stuff from telemarketters!

If you ask people, "do you want telemarketing calls?" you'll get a nearly unanimous "NO!" But if you actually call those same people up and pressure sell them something, a non-trivial number will actually buy. You know you shouldn't, but telemarketers (or at least their phone script writers) are quite good at using psychological tricks to work around your logic with drive at emotions. (These aren't strictly telemarketing techniques, anyone doing one-on-one sales is typically familiar with the techniques. People working car sales are the sterotypical example.)

Telemarketers argue that since people do buy things, they clearly want the calls, even if those same people claim that they don't want the calls.

By way of tortured example, it's like someone who has little self control with food. If snack food is available, they'll eat it. So they react by not keeping snack food in their home. Logically they don't want it, but when the actual temptation is in front of them reason goes for a walk.

Telemarketers know that they're trying to subvert reason. Some people want on the Do Not Call list because they will never buy something and don't want the interruption. But some know that they are weak when actually pressure sold something and don't want to face the pressure selling tactics. Claiming that they really wanted the call bullshit.

So, that's why telemarketers want to call people on the Do Not Call list. They're still scum, but it can be educational to study scum.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[nytmare]

Public relations ploy. They only say they'll comply because that's what they have to say. Saying otherwise -- "nyeah nyeah judge says we don't have to respect your preferences so we're not gonna" -- would get their industry-collective face punched in. But can you expect the deeds of one of the country's sleaziest industries to match their words? Not as long as they can stay anonymous over the phone.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in part because some people who are suckers for any sale would put their names on the don't call list to protect themselves. In those cases the telemarketers would be losing "easy" sales. Years ago when I sold vacuum cleaners my supervisor explicitly told us to always knock on the doors that had the "no solicitor" signs. Many times you would get scolded, but many other times the sign meant "please leave me alone, I buy everything presented to me." I suspect that this would be the reason they are not willing to abide by such a list.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many companies comply with the DMA's Do Not Call list already. Just being on that list ended almost all of my telemarketing calls.

But sadly, what ChaosDiscord said is very true.

Not going to buy anything anyway!

[Comen]

I think of this list as just saving these stupid people the time of calling me and making me mad and not selling anything anyway.
I mean for to many years now they have called me, made me mad and didnt sell a damn thing.
I can tell them right now they have zero fucking chance of selling me anything. I have never bought anything over the pohne, I have never even listened so someone telling me I might have won a trip or money, I tell them to leave me alone.
So why they would be so upset I want to be on a list that tells them not to bother is crazy.
I mean I still see what they are saying, I just think it stupid and alot of other people out there probaly think the same thing, and know they are never going to buy any of there stupid shit anyway.

Fifty million people or five thousand dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we know how many people it takes to get Congress to act: Fifty million.

If your petition has less than fifty million signatures it probably goes in the round file. Unless there is a $5000 check stapled to it.

Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[Wonko42]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway. The amount of time and money telemarketers will save just by not having to call those people has got to be substantial. Someone who hasn't gone to the trouble of putting themselves on the do not call list is almost certainly going to be much more receptive to an unsolicited sales pitch.

The government is doing telemarketers a huge favor, while at the same time benefitting the general public. It's a win-win situation. What's the problem?

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[rgmoore]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them.

It's more logical than you think. One very important subset of the people who don't want the calls are those who don't want them because they work. I don't understand their psychology very well, but there are apparently some people who simply find it very difficult to say no to telemarketers, and those people often find themselves spending a lot of money on things they don't need as a result. OTOH, many of them apparently have no problem with going to a web site to register not to be called in the first place- they only have a problem saying no to a person. If you prevent telemarketers from calling those people, which the DNC should do, then telemarketing will be much less profitable. Of course the telemarketers don't want to stand up and say, "You have to let us call the poor suckers who don't really want to buy from us but can be talked into doing so anyway," so they phrase everything in free speech terms, but that's what the real issue is.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[flamingantichimp]

Yes, but the people who do buy stuff from telemarketers are people who just "can't say no". Those people view this list as a gift from God, since they don't have to worry about whether to be "polite" or be smart and hang up on them.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[peeping_Thomist]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

Many people on the list (such as myself) sometimes buy products or services as a result of phone solicitations, but would prefer, all things considered, to get no such calls (since most of them are just annoying). The telemarketers will lose a lot of business when this list is enforced, but it's their own fault for not policing themselves.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[taj]

It is never that simple.

Take for example elderly people who are not in full control. Perhaps the family is trying to allow them to live as independantly as possible. They recieve a phone call from someone willing to talk to them while others are at work or running the children to soccer games.

This new friend sells some Sears siding to the elderly person for $10,000 after talking to them about the voices on TV. The elderly person hangs up and says something about "that was such a nice boy."

The sales person just earned his $10 and picks up the next autodialed number.

Now the family will only let that happen once before the number is put on the no call list. Is this what the telemarketers want?

They will be sharing that phone number with questionable charities and other sales groups.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[ticklemeozmo]

telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them....a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway

While I hate arguing by analogy because someone always picks apart the relation, imagine walking into a bar and every girl already having a "NO" sign on them. They have already preempted your sleezy pickup lines by letting you know ahead of time.

Here's the rebuttle to that. How do you know you don't want my product unless you know what it is. A girl could be losing out on the love of her life, or a good one night stand. Either way, she's already closed her mind off before even knowing about something.

Apply this to other venues, you refuse to eat "peas and brocolli" because "they look yucky." or something. Never bothering to open your mind and at least hear and idea out.

You can see how this can be abused. The fight is not about first amendment rights (that's only a buzzword to get in the media), its most likely about politely convincing someone by throwing down an iron curtain, they could be losing out on something good...

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[RayMarron]

I thought that too, then thought better of it. Who buys most of the crap sold by telemarketers? People who can't afford it but just don't have the intestinal fortitude to say "no" to a live human being. The DNC is an easy-out for these easy marks, and THAT'S why I think the telemarketers hate it so.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[thomas.galvin]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

What they are worried about are the people that, 99% of the time, are too polite to say "ring off," and end up buying whatever pap the telemarketer is selling. If they are unable to reach these people, profits will plumet, and I imagine that a large percent of the DNC list is made up of these people.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this isn't about trying to date nuns or debate ideologies. This is about high pressure sales to make quick cash.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[ChaosDiscord]

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

1% would be a pretty good return rate.

Also, the telemarketers believe that the return rate on numbers on the Do Not Call list will be higher than 1%. Many people logically know that buying stuff from a telemarketer is a bad idea, but when confronted with a high pressure salemen start reacting emotionally and may make a bad decision.

Basically telemarketers are seeking permission to continue preying on these people, even though these people have chosen to opt out. (And "these people" isn't "the old and senile", it's lots of otherwise ordinary people who simply aren't good at handling pressure tactics.)

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[glaqua]

Well, that would be the case if the telemarketers business was selling product. But I suspect its not.

Their business is actually making phone calls. And I bet they get payed by the number of calls placed, not on the success of those calls. And if you just hang up on a telemarketer, you are helping them make more money

So, the DNC list will be better for the businesses that hire telemarketers, and perhaps they will be very painful for the telemarketers themselves.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[evilviper]

there are apparently some people who simply find it very difficult to say no to telemarketers, and those people often find themselves spending a lot of money on things they don't need as a result.

Indeed, sales pitches are extremely seductive to some people, causing them to temporarily forget all logic.

I know (middle-aged) people who don't even have carpets, but were talked into buying a multi-thousand-dollar vaccume cleaner. I know people who don't ever make long-distance calls, but are paying $20/month for unlimited service. I know people who are on a sewer system, but were convinced that buying septic-tank chemicals would somehow save them money.

However, the worst situation is senior citizens. They usually aren't as skeptical as they need to be. Many people have fallen for the ads that claim you'll get a great, easy, multi-million dollar job, if you will only send them $29.95.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[soft_guy]

imagine walking into a bar and every girl already having a "NO" sign on them.

When you look like I do, you don't have to imagine.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[Steve B]

imagine walking into a bar and every girl already having a "NO" sign on them

You mean that isn't how it is normally?

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[Anonymous Coward]

> One very important subset of the people who don't want the calls are those who don't want them because they work.

Well, sure, but what percentage is that subset?

Look at the number of people who both (1) have the psychological defect that makes them unable to not buy from a telemarketer, and (2) have placed themselves on the DNC list. How do you know that number is high enough to account for any significant percentage of telemarketing sales?

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[gcaseye6677]

OK, Peeping Tom, I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, but I think you should realize this: EVERYTHING sold by telemarketing is a bad deal. Think about it, the stuff that people really want and need pretty much sells itself. No aggressive marketing needed. Telemarketing has a success rate of less than 1% (number called vs. number who bought). When something is sold using an extremely ineffective technique, the only way the seller can make money is if there is a HUGE markup, ie. the customer is getting ripped off. For this reason, I hang up on all sales calls without listening to the pitch. If I want a newspaper, I'll subscribe. If I want to change long distance, I'll call them. Its always a better deal.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[gcaseye6677]

As the saying goes, a fool and his(her) money are soon parted. Harsh, but true.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[JuggleGeek]

Many people on the list (such as myself) sometimes buy products or services as a result of phone solicitations

It's the jerks like you who buy from telemarketers and spammers who encourage them. Then the rest of us, who will just tell them "Fuck off, asshole, I don't want your crap" and never buy anything still have to put up with the spam and the phone calls.

I've never bought from a telemarketer. I never will. I've never bought from a spammer. I never will. And I'm tired of having to tell them that over and over and over.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[peeping_Thomist]

EVERYTHING sold by telemarketing is a bad deal.

That's just not true. I wish it were, but it's not. There have been times when I've been called and offered a better price on some good or service (a good or service that I already wanted) than was available otherwise.

It's taking TWO federal agencies?!

[pi_rules]

OK, give me a break. How hard is it, really, to enforce this? How many freaking people does it really take to:

- receive a complaint
- Verify the call with the telco
- write them up and get it in front of a judge.

It's a pretty cut and dry matter if you ask me. It won't take long for the agencies to get hit so bad that they'll just plain quit.

Hey, I'm all for privacy and such, but commercial places -can- be monitored. Why not just round up all the outgoing calls made from the commercial call center and cross check that against the DNC list? No fuss, no muss. People don't even have to bother reporting it then.

If you want a cheap solution, gimmie a bottle of booze and a trusty AK-47. That'll teach 'em.

Telemarketers will need more employees

[avkillick]

Surely, this clause in the legislation which WILL be enforced Wednesday indicates that the telemarketers will need mor folks on hand - insteads of putting the consumer on hold until the next agent becomes free "When a telemarketer calls a residence, a person or recorded voice must begin talking within two seconds after the consumer answers. "

Re:Telemarketers will need more employees

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have a system that connects them to a telemarketer if one is available within 1.5 seconds. If not, you start playing a recorded sales pitch until you can lock a telemarketer and put them on the call.

Re:Telemarketers will need more employees

[NumLk]

or recorded voice

Somehow, I think they will be hiring more recorded voices instead of otherwise unemployable people.

The judge may be happy. Guess why?

[netringer]

The judge who held up the enforcement of the Do Not Call list may be happy that the FCC gave him an out.
His phone number is on the list!

That, and there's all those phone calls he's been getting from consumers who wanted to show what tehy could with the "rights" he was upholding.

How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights?

[jason.hall]

Can someone explain how this is restricting telemarketers' First Amendment right? They can still "speak" all they want - I just don't want them to speak to me. Does the right to free speech mean there's a REQUIREMENT that they have an audience to listen? An unwilling audience?

govt our savior? lemme be the sceptic for a minute

[zr]

i heard once BG (yes, that one) propose a method for battling spam, where as the originating party is charged fee to place a phone call.

phone line user would have a way to waive the fee for friendlies. or not, for bogies. at $20 a pop, let them call, i dont care ;)

Your chance to help your fellow neighbor...

[Anonymous Coward]

To add a number to the do-not-call-list(TM), you enter the number in a web site. You then give the web site your e-mail address, and respond to a delivered e-mail address to confirm you want the number added. ANY e-mail address works. So, if you want to be DoublePlusGood today, you could:

1) Write a bot that adds one number at a time to the DNC list, starting with 000-000-0000 and ending in 999-999-9999.

2) Autoresponder bot at e-mail address will respond to DNC email, confirming you want the number on the list

3) ???

4) Rejoice! EVERYONE is now on the DNC list.

For added flavor, use plenty more e-mail addresses, seperate the task among groups and geographic regions, etc.

Re:Your chance to help your fellow neighbor...

[Skater]

Don't do this. I could see telemarketers somehow using this to demonstrate that the list is useless and therefore should be struck down...

Besides there probably are some people who want these calls. *shudder*

--RJ

It has been said many times...

[overbyj]

but for once, I truly welcome our new FCC overlords!

Thank you FCC for stepping in here. If there were ever a time for the government to interfere, this is it!

Brief Explanation

[Valdrax]

A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both sides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.

Re:Brief Explanation

[rleibman]

Maybe I'm wrong, but in my understanding of political philosophy: A corporation (or any group of individuals) derives (should derive) its rights from the rights of the individuals forming it. If individuals have a freedom of speech, and gvmt recognizes that right (notice I mention that gvmt recognizes, not grants) then individuals can delegate that right to corporations they belong. How can you supress a right of a corporation without supressing the right of the individuals making up that corporation at any given time?

Re:Brief Explanation

[rodgerd]

Because corporations are a legal fiction. They no more have rights that your television does.

Moreover, corporations do no enjoy the same responsibilities you and I do. The limited liability bit in a corporation effectively prevents either the corporation or the owners thereof from suffering the same sanctions as a real person. Why, then, should they enoy all the rights?

Re:Brief Explanation

[WhaDaYaKnow]

such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected

Hehe. But it sure is fun! ;)

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation is a legal entity, not a person. It can't have morality and feelings. Only the people who run the corporation can. Oh, and making a profit is NOT IMMORAL!

Do-Not-Mail list?

[Blue Lozenge]

This Do-Not-Call list is a great idea. Now I'm wondering... when will they implement a Do-Not-Mail list? Not only am I sick of telemarketers calling my house, but I'm sick of junk-mail marketers filling my mailbox with garbage. I have always wondered how many legit, important pieces of mail are tossed out with the junk.

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[VCAGuy]

Now that will never happen. The USPS gets too much money from bulk mailing for them to even consider that...you think $0.37 for a first-class letter is high? It may be much worse...

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[kimgh]

there already is one: remove.org

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[Anonymous Coward]

except that .37 is that high ONLY because it is subsidizing the bulk mail.

4th rate bulk mail costs less than required to deliver.

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[JuggleGeek]

remove.org is run by spammers, for spammers. They send spam themselves (or they hire other spammers to do it for them.) If you are stupid enough to pay remove.org to not spam you, then you are part of the problem. It's idiots who give money to the spammers that make it worth their while to harass the rest of us.

The "Do not call list" is something that...

[Osrin]

.. the TelCo's should have been able to step up and do a long time ago. In the same way as I choose not to have my number listed in a directory I should also be able to choose for it not to be able to telemarketeers, pet stores and any girls that I've met in clubs. (or whatever matrix of people I choose to keep my number private from).

The choice to use their service should be mine, I would be happy to pay for such a service *if* the TelCo could enforce it.

Re:The "Do not call list" is something that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You see-----A telemarketers bring the TelCo's a large volume of business.

It is in the TelCo's interest for the telemarketers to call everyone all the time.

The payoff to the phone company to even it out would probably be quite large.

Re:The "Do not call list" is something that...

[ferret70]

It's the Telcos that have been selling you out to these people all along! They'll be making $$$ playing both ends against the middle.

Re:The "Do not call list" is something that...

[Anonymous Coward]

The TelCo's are in the business of making money, not making you happy. The will sell you a service that helps filter off these calls, but don't expect them to give you anything.

Re:The "Do not call list" is something that...

[Osrin]

of course, all those who posted that the TelCo only exists to make money are correct.

Now they're going to lose the money anyway, they could have had $4.95 out of me (and a pile of others) every month, but now they get nothing.

This may be a rant but...

[Anonymous Coward]

To all the companies that cold call me at 5:15pm just as i'm getting home to get me to buy more Super Product 3500. FUCK YOU. Enough people have complained and sued and now with the No Call List have literally given you all the middle finger. Please PISS OFF.

Re:It will never succeed.

[fucksl4shd0t]

While I agree with your post in spirit, I will contest it.

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out

Monopoly laws work to the advantage of many corporations, who would not exist without competition.

corporate taxes would be nullified,

This is in blatant contrast to your last statement. If "the people" run the government, why are we taxed? Why aren't businesses the only ones taxed? Because *someone* has to pay for government if we want it, and even if corporations ran the government, they'd still pay their taxes.

companies would have the right to vote

The assumption is that companies pay representatives to vote how the company wants them to. They don't need regular balloting like citizens have, if that's the case.

environmental protections would go away

Not necessarily. There are many corporations who would destroy the world with their irresponsibility, but most corporations realize at some level that if they ruin the environment, they lose their market, their workforce, and their customers.

corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.

The assumption is that they already are, with a few freak occurences. This is because of the high cost of lawyers and law suits in general. So protection from the public in lawsuits isn't strictly needed. On the other hand, if there were such protections, there is likely to be an uprising to throw out those in power. So they take one for the team, so to speak.

Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.

Sorry, dude, you're going to have to define "evil" to back this up. And just for the record, if someone declared corporations evil and I responded, I'd ask the same of them. :)

Re:in capitalist america

[civilengineer]

anonymous cowards call telemarketers

An evil trick just crossed my mind

[wowbagger]

An evil trick to play on a telemarketer just crossed my mind - pity I don't get more calls from them.

Set up a computer to record the sound from the phone line, delay it about 250 msec, and play it back on the phone line. Make this switchable, so that you can turn it on at will.

Telemarketer calls. Switch on delay when they speak, off when you speak.

That much delay will make just about anybody stutter like mad.

FAA Weighs in...

[Sumbody]

In what can only be attributed to a bout of acronymic jealousy the FAA today proposed implementing a "Please Call Me" list. Initial subscribers will be the lonely FAA controllers banished to far-off places for whistle-blowing, but will be expanded soon to include the sick, infirmed, bedridden, heartbroken, homebound, lovelorn, and those under house arrest. Later, the list may also include the just plain bored, except for the telemarketers. "We hate those guys!", claimed Brian Sinclair, an FAA spokesperson. "Sometimes they call on the Red Phone, and we have to put our cards down and go answer it. It is the red phone, ya know. And it scares the bejeebers out of us when it rings."

App Development Requirements:

[SparklesMalone]

This is a good slashdot designer topic.

App requirements:

1) Prevent the phone from audibly ringing until the caller has identified themelves.

2) Keep the cost under (arbitrary) $20.

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out, corporate taxes would be nullified, companies would have the right to vote, environmental protections would go away and corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.

Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out, corporate taxes would be nullified, companies would have the right to vote, environmental protections would go away and corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.

Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.

Re:It will never succeed.

[RocketScientist]

Why throw the monopoly laws out when you can just not enforce them? Where's the Microsoft case at again? Oh yeah, settled as soon as GWB got his feet underneath him.

If the people are running the government now, then why do we pay taxes?

Companies vote all the time. Enron was one of the largest contributors to both the DNC and the RNC, so they even got to vote TWICE.

Arsenic in drinking water isn't good enough for you? Getting rid of Kyoto (which, admittedly, is a REALLY BAD IDEA ANYWAY) isn't enough?

And anytime a corporation can afford to pay more to lawyers than most countries can...I mean, how much do you think tobacco companies actually pay their lawyers? The reason everything's a class action suit is because that's the only way anybody can afford to sue them.

My question to you is, why should businesses assault government from the front to get what they want when they can buy the government covertly and get the same positive effects without the bad PR?

Re:It will never succeed.

[phalse phace]

"corporate taxes would be nullified"

Not exactly nullified, but many corporations are already finding ways to avoid paying their taxes.

"companies would have the right to vote"

In a sense, companies do vote... through political contributions, lobbyists, political favors, etc.

"environmental protections would go away"

With the passage of NAFTA, we already see this happening. From Global Exchange:

NAFTA includes unprecedented ways for corporations to attack our laws through so-called "investor-to-state" lawsuits. Such suits, established by NAFTA's Chapter 11, allow corporations to sue governments for compensation if they feel that any government action, including the enforcement of public health and safety laws, cuts into their profits. Already, Chapter 11 lawsuits have been used to repeal a Canadian law banning a chemical linked to nervous system damage, and to challenge California's phase-out of a gas additive, MTBE, that is poisoning the state's ground water. Negotiators want to include these anti-democratic lawsuits in the FTAA.

Mod this up!

[Dr_LHA]

Moderators: Please mod the parent of this up. I'm tired of seeing the same old argument on Slashdot that the Do Not Call List is good for telemarketers, which is clearly not true

Re:Free Speech? How About Free to Not Listen!

[91degrees]

This is a very important question. Since the First amendment was written, the world has changed. We really need to consider whether speech actually requires both the listener and the speaker. Purely on the grounds of semantics, it doesn't. There is freedom for the speaker only.

However, in the past it has never been considered a problem. You actually have to make a positive effort to buy and read a newspaper, or watch a broadcast. You don't get the same level of choice with telemarkating.

It's a political point that really needs to be cleared up.

None of them have a right

[reboot246]

I have a sign on my property that forbids trespassing and another one on the front door that forbids solicitation.

A "Do Not Call" list is the equivalent of those signs. Ringing my phone is the same as knocking on my door. CallerID is the same as looking out the window to see who is knocking.

I want all callers to be included. I don't want to hear from charities, politicians, pollsters, or telemarketers. Nobody, period.

I believe that is my right and being an Alabamian, I dare defend my rights.

Re:None of them have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you owe me money and I need to collect, you deadbeat?

Slashdot users are torn...

[BTWR]

George Bush signed this bill into law, so Slashdot users are torn, between their blind anti-Bush sentiment and their anti-telemarketer sentiment. Hmmm....

For the record, I'm not a republican. I'm from New York and voted, very happily I might add, for Hillary Clinton. I just find blind partisianship (either side) awful, and abundant here on /.

Re:Slashdot users are torn...

[spitzak]

The Democrats are far more guilty for helping the RIAA/MPAA than the Republicans, and that is common knowledge here. I am mostly anti-Bush, but I also know that Bush is far better than Feinstein here. I don't think the politics here are as biased as you think.

Re:Slashdot users are torn...

[soft_guy]

I'm not a democratic voter. I'm a republican voter-againster.

Re:It will never succeed.

[Aidtopia]

• The monopoly laws are still on the books, but most would agree they're hard to enforce. Microsoft got off relatively easy after being convicted of illegal practices with respect to their (legal) monopoly.
• Corporate tax rates are at historic lows at all levels of government.
• Companies cannot vote, but their executives and lobbyists have unprecedented access to our representatives. Some would argue this is a more direct route to getting the government you want than actually voting.
• Environmental protections are being rolled back in some cases and blocked in others.
• There is significant support for tort reform, but here industries are at cross purposes the; lawyer lobby doesn't want to see it happen.

I don't think it's so much a matter of fear mongering as it is people who honestly see the same things from very different perspectives.

Following the court's logic

[straponego]

If "freedom of speech" means that I have to let people call me to offer products I don't want, then "freedom of assembly" must mean that I can't prevent random groups of bastards from meeting at my house to shoot smack and whistle.

Re:How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights

[91degrees]

The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard. They seem to be stretching the right a little to think it includes the right to force it on people.

Exactly the same reasoning would give you the constitutional right to break into a newspaper publisher, and use their printing presses to publish your own newspaper.

How many federal agencies does it take...

[kbs]

How many federal agencies does it take to screw in a light bulb? ...

Re:I'm supposed to feel good about trusting this .

[synth7]

Good call, best drop that broadband and go with IP over Avian Carriers (RFC 1149).

If you're doing voice or video conferencing, you may wish to go with IP over Avian Carriers with QoS (RFC 2549).

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"corporate taxes would be nullified"
Discounts for SUVs, anyone?

"companies would have the right to vote"
Ever heard of those "political contribution" things? They just vote with their wallet, and it is more effective.

"environmental protections would go away"
Do I even need to answer this one?

Re:It will never succeed.

[petermdodge]

When the profit is made to the determent of another person, even a single person, it is immoral.

The beauty of this...

[TWX]

...is that the FCC doesn't have to deal with "prevention of free speech", because the telephone is a regulated medium. The FCC can state that the telemarketting firms are not allowed to call people who are paying for telephone lines since the people didn't obtain their phone lines for someone else to use, but for they themselves to use. So, since the telemarketting firm isn't paying for the phone line, they can't legally call on it for unsolicited business purposes.

As far as "Free Speech" goes, they are fully entitled to get a billboard, print a publication, run an ad in a magazine or newspaper, the act of presentation isn't being stopped. The medium is already regulated and has been since inception.

Re:The beauty of this...

[Telastyn]

Very interesting! I had not thought of it this way. I'm still not sure that's a very good thing either, [see DSL problems with *bell] but at least it's by the book.

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you just mentioned everything that corporations already have.

Monopoly laws thrown out: Just look at Microsoft! nuff said.

Corporate taxes: Look at those tax brakes W is giving. Hey, guess who gets tons of money? Bill Gates and Ken Lay!

Right to vote: Well, with the whole Campaign Finance Reform thing, money has now been designated a freedom-of-speech issue, so basically corporations give money, politicians listen. OK it's not exactly voting, but the next best thing. Besides, don't the people in the corporation get to vote?

Environmental protections: Clean Air act being repealed. Nuff said.

Corporations protected from Lawsuits: What's that legislation they're pushing through congress? Tort reform? Look it up, yet another example of the government bowing down to corporate interests.

Libertarians are really happy right now, I can tell you that =) Except for the Iraq War >_<

Sign me up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem at all paying $2.00 to send a first class letter, if it ment no more bulk junk mail.

My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum

[Nom du Keyboard]

What the (IMHO idiotic) Denver Judge fails to understand is that my personal telephone is not a public forum. As such, it is not subject to any First Amendment considerations. (Also IMHO airports aren't public forums either, although the court has disagreed.)

If my telephone is a free-speech public forum, then one could easily argue that anyone should be able to knock on my front door and demand to be allowed into my house to make their sales pitch under the U.S. Constitution. They're not -- and neither is my phone.

Btw, I've heard that not only is the Denver judge's office telephone already on the Do Not Call List, but also that large numbers of people are demanding his home phone so that they can exercise their own First Amendment rights.

Re:My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum

[ChaoticLimbs]

PSST- intelligent arguments, such as yours, are better suited to another medium. Do it again, and I shall have to mod you down as a troll, or offtopic or both.

Re:My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum

[steveorama]

"...then one could easily argue that anyone should be able to knock on my front door and demand to be allowed into my house to make their sales pitch..." You make an interesting point, however, there's a leap in logic there. When your phone rings, it's the equivalent of knocking on the door. So, should knocking on your door be made illegal too?

Re:My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum

[Nom du Keyboard]

When your phone rings, it's the equivalent of knocking on the door. So, should knocking on your door be made illegal too?

When it involved tresspass onto your private property, and you have taken the necessary step of posting a "Tresspassers Will Be Proscuted" sign -- Yes.

Equal Protection, Free Speech

[salesgeek]

I suspect that the telemarketers are here to stay as the only ban that will meet the equal protection standard is the LIST APPLIES TO ALL CALLERS - commercial, noncomercial or even private.

Freedom of speech is another issue all togather. What good is free speech if no one can hear you?

Re:Equal Protection, Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Telemarketers can stand on the street and talk at my house all they want. They just can't use my phone line without my permission.

I don't think commercial speech should get the same protection as non-commercial speech. The courts have agreed with this over and over, so I don't see the equal protection thing as a big hurdle. Just go up a few levels until they find a reasonable judge. Remember, the marketers picked the court to start the battle in.

Judges' phone numbers

[daemonc]

Here are the office phone numbers for the two state judges that ruled against the Do Not Call list:

Lee R West - (405) 348-0818, Edmond, OK 73003
The 'Honorable' Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

and the more recent one:

Judge Edward W. Nottingham
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14
(303) 844-5018

I encourage all Slashdotters to exercise your first ammendment rights, and let them know what you think about their rulings. Hopefully someone will find their home numbers, since telemarketers usually call you at home, and these two firmly believe that everyone should have the right to call you at home anytime they feel like it, even after you've specifically asked them not to.

Mod this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod it up!

Mod parent UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

As insightful . . .

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[JuggleGeek]

I've read a lot of messages on the DNC fiasco, and written a few myself.

Steve B, I think your message was one of the best I've seen on the subject.

Did you notice the DMA has their own list?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Direct Marketing Association has their own system for reducing unwanted calls, the so-called "Telephone Preference Service" (TPS). The kicker is that you pay a $5 "processing fee" to sign up:

http://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offtelephone

50 million Americans * $5/American = $250M

The DNC list stands to take away a large chunk of their business, er, I mean "processing fees".

Re:Did you notice the DMA has their own list?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew this. I think they should do a better job of publicizing this list. Perhaps they could give everyone a polite phone call, asking if they would like to sign up for the list. That would be a nice thing for them to do.

I LOVE THIS!

[WCMI92]

BwaaaaHAHAHAHA!!

If only more people would look these Imperial Courts straight in the eye, shake their head and say, "no", then follow it with "go to hell" then followed with directions on just how to get there.

I'm getting sick and tired of these usurpers getting in the way of democracy. NO ONE who founded this country ever intended for the Federal Judiciary to become a despotism of hundreds of serve-for-life, can't fire me KINGS...

Re:How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights

[Garg]

Following the telemarketers' logic, there should be no unlisted phone numbers. If I can't call up anybody I want, my free speech is violated.

Hi, Your Eminence! Hear my confession.

Yo, George W.! Here's what I think the economy needs...

That's why it was so funny when the Okie judge's number got posted on the 'net. I didn't hear if that happened to the Colorado doofus, but it should have.

Sorry, guys, but your rights end where mine begin. That's basic civics.

Garg

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

My God, the crack at the end says you're not kidding, right?

With a your user number in the low 3-figures, I guess we shouldn't pay any mind to grandpa when he starts talking his nonsense again.

Tell us about the time the first steam train arrived in town instead!

Line rental

[sbszine]

I don't know about you, but I pay a monthly fee for 'line rental' etc. So even if I make no phone calls, I am paying for my phone service, including unwanted telemarketing.

Further, I think my time is valuable. I don't mind answering marketers' questions if I'm being paid a consultancy fee, but otherwise they're just tying up my phone line and using up time that could be spent usefully*.

*(or Slashdotting)

well... get ready for a long recession..

[horos2c]

I hate to say it, but this law is probably going to cause one hell of a recession. But America asked for it..

Figure, when the 50 million americans are gone from this list, and the telemarketers call the other 50 million who then don't like to be called twice a day, they will run to the registry.

And as the registry grows, the number of remaining people will shrink, and shrink fast. Soon, there will be no telemarketing industry left.

And when there is no telemarketing industry, 2 million jobs will be lost, pretty much forever. And the jobs dependent on those 2 million jobs will be lost, and so on, up the food chain.

So look forward to 9-10% unemployment, sagging output, and a nagging recession/depression.

I can't believe that people are so short-sighted on this. The reason why telemarketing is there is because it works - people buy products over the phone. And the jobs that are going to be lost aren't going to be easily transferrable to other places (lots of handicapped, elderly, and disadvantaged people have telemarketing jobs).

"But I don't want to be disturbed!!!". Fine, let the industry police itself; you can buy a device to redirect telemarketing calls so that you aren't disturbed (forget what its called, but it does exist). And let the industry evolve rather than involving it in a extinction level event..

God. If people can't see that economies are like ecologies; that you can't simply wipe out an entire class of industry and not have collateral damage, then I despair for this country. And no, I don't have any financial interest in telemarketing companies whatsoever. Just self-interest.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[linux_author]

- i doubt it... the telemarketing industry is transient with high employee turnover... and the telemarketing industry does not create consumer need where it does not exist... - what DNC signups will have is peace and quiet, especially during dinner time, along with the ability to work and telecommute from home without interruption... - i would be against the DNC if i were to receive a check from each caller who wasted my time and interrupted my work - heck, i might even listen to a pitch or two... - i relish the day when telemarketers no longer call my home - they are free to call anyone who wants to receive the calls, however... - i'd even be against the DNC if the local phone company provided DNC phone numbers at no cost - that way i'd be able to more easily opt out... - but then there'd be no reason to have a DNC, right?

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[ChaoticLimbs]

Nothing in this law prevents a salesman from making sales. It simply allows those who have been bothered enough by telephone marketing to 'opt out'. Although it is convenient to compare an economy to an ecology, they are fundamentally different from one another. We can't really compare wiping out an economic sector to wiping out a species. (At least I think that's the parallel you were drawing.) In an ecological disaster, individual organisms are destroyed. Beavers cannot become antelope, so their contributions are gone. An economy, however, is made of malleable material. Investors can generally walk away from a telemarketing business without too much loss of capital, since most of their expenditure is rent and a telephone system. If the business declares bankruptcy, obviously the investor loses everything he hasn't withdrawn up to that point, but he isn't dead. He can switch tactics and invest in another business, or start another himself in another industry. Humans are the most adaptable species on earth, and certainly telemarketers are not greatly invested in their occupations such that a change of career would be impossible. Chicken little sonofabitch! (had to troll a bit there, sorry.) I just find all this hand-wringing over every issue just because the president has an "R" next to his name on the ballot to be tedious. In your case, somewhat well delivered tedium, but still overly pessimistic.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can't believe that people are so short-sighted on this

The bad economic effects that you mentioned will be short-term effects. But that short-term "pain" is guaranteed to translate into long-term benefits. The benefit will be the permenent elimination of an inefficient and wasteful selling method.

There are, sadly, many people like you who advocate short-term considerations at the expense of long-term ones. For example, when Congress borrows money rather than cut spending, they are artificially boosting today's economy at the expense of tomorrow's.

Another example: If everyone started saving their money (rather than getting into more debt) the economy would experience short-term pain, but in the long-term, everyone would be much more financially stable.

Your focus on the short-term is (not surprisingly) very short-sighted.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fine, let the industry police itself; you can buy a device to redirect telemarketing calls so that you aren't disturbed (forget what its called, but it does exist). And let the industry evolve rather than involving it in a extinction level event.."

Sounds nifty-keen when you say it, but the fact is that telemarketers are developing technology to defeat the Telezapper and any other anti-telemarketing devices. IOW, they really do want to disturb people at home, even people who have taken affirmative steps to be free of telemarketing. They are really so arrogant, obnoxious, and greedy that the government was finally forced into action.

They brought do-not-call upon themselves by their complete, utter, abject failure to police themselves. They have made the telephone practically unusable for a lot of people, and I'm not surprised that when they people fought back, they fought back hard.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[horos2c]

"The bad economic effects that you mentioned will be short-term effects. But that short-term "pain" is guaranteed to translate into long-term benefits. The benefit will be the permenent elimination of an inefficient and wasteful selling method."

But that's the point - telemarketing is by far the *most* successful selling method out there. That's why people do it!

Consumers don't have to go any place, the sales pitch lasts a few seconds, no store front (and hence no shop front) is necessary to sell a product and hence no overhead in starting new, riskier businesses.. etc. etc.

As for humans being infinitely malleable, that's so self-serving that I don't know where to begin. "Every one being better off" . What the hell are these people going to do? Meter maid? There are 4 million people - 4 million people - doing these jobs, and when telemarketing goes, their age and skillset does not license itself to easy retraining..

Worst of all, no studies have been done at either the Federal or the state level as to the impact of all of this. Something that one *might* consider doing before one puts 2 million people out on the street.

Overall, it goes along with the shift in IT - which I could buy more along the lines of an efficiency argument - there are only so many things a man/woman can do, and after these are outsourced or gone, the consuming side of capitalism goes out-of-konk.

In order for capitalism to work, each citizen has to be a good producer, and a good consumer. We are rapidly reaching the point where we can outsource *so* many jobs that americans will no longer be able to be good *consumers*. When this happens, watch out. A similar thing happened in the 1930's - with it depression, starvation, massive unemployment.

So. hmm. After the 1930's were we better off? Maybe - but that's small consolation to the millions upon millions of displaced citizens, the people who committed suicide, the 20% unemployment rate, and so on..

You really don't want to bend an economy too fast. It may just break.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[Anonymous Coward]

> telemarketing is by far the *most* successful selling method out there. That's why people do it!

Oh, for heaven's sake -- that's so ignorant, it's just sad! There are many, many selling methods that are more efficient (and hence more "successful" to the bottom line) than telemarketing.

Here's an example: I go to Barnes&Noble.com and order a book online -- no salesman; no commission; and no wasted time upselling me on junk I don't need. The increased efficiency makes it a much more successful method.

According to your argument, all online purchasing would be "bad" because it puts traditional salesmen out of work. And then you further insult those salesmen by implying that they're not flexible enough to participate in other job roles.

Your response contained the same old tired arguments that are so commonly made by people trying to defend old dinosaurs, and trying to stall the inevitable changes to the economy that are coming. Delays have never helped, and they never will. The sooner telemarketers realize that they need to find a productive role in the future economy, the better.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[Steve B]

But that's the point - telemarketing is by far the *most* successful selling method out there.

Stealing is the *most* successful *buying* method out there -- 0% down, with 0 monthly payments of $0. By your "logic", it ought to be legalized.

What the hell are these people going to do??

There are many professions more honorable and respectable than telephone spamming, such as turning tricks or selling crack.

There are 4 million people - 4 million people - doing these jobs, and when telemarketing goes, their age and skillset does not license itself to easy retraining.

Let them get legitimate jobs. If my two previous suggestions aren't sufficient, I can think of plenty of others.

Even if they are profoundly learning-disabled, and thus stuck with no skills other than talking to people on the phone, they can work for incoming call centers.

Worst of all, no studies have been done at either the Federal or the state level as to the impact of all of this.

The "broken window fallacy" underlying your entire argument has been understood for a century and a half. No need for additional studies.

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[crimson30]

First of all, according to the department of labor, the unemployment rate is currently at 6.1% with 8.9 million unemployed. If the '2 million telemarketers' figure is actually correct (1.4% of the workforce??), then the unemployment rate would be 7.5% at worst.

Second of all, get a clue...it's obviously not going to have nearly the same effect as laying off 2 million *productive* people. We're talking about a low-paying job, which, at best, generates some small amount of consumerism.

But this is besides the point: it's a public nusiance. Any claims of economical benefit can and should be ignored.

no it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

the telephone isn't yours, sure you might of bought the handset but thats it!, the telephone company own the rest you just "borrow it" for a fee, also if you check the small print you will find that the phone company can access their equipment on your property, the Gas company can even break down your door if their equipment is tampered with/leaks without a warrant and you will of given consent for all of this when you bought the service, but i doubt you read the 8page 9px font agreement did you ?

Re:no it isn't

[(54)T-Dub]

As per the gas company that makes sense because of public safety. However, I believe that the phone company's property ends at the house. I can do whatever I want with the phone line once it is in my house. This was enacted to prevent the phone company from charging people to have more than one phone attached to a single line. (works for cable companies too though they don't want you to know).

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

But... but...

Then who would you hate so that you can feel all smugly superior?

Re:It will never succeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is "determent"? Do you mean detriment? What kind of detriment? Selling a product for profit? Selling a defective product? Outright stealing? What?

I think you mean that making a profit using illegal methods is immoral. But, in that case, it's the people running the company who are immoral, not the company. There are laws on the books to deter companies from using illegal means to an end.

Re:Why so many problems

[CaffeineFreak]

Why are there so many problems implementing a do not call list in the United States. We have had a do not call list (called the telephone preference list) in the UK for several years now and it works a treat. You can sign up to it whenever you want (no closing date for joining) and since joining it over 18 months ago I haven't had a single advertising call.

There is no issue over freedom of advertising in the UK as the courts took the stance that the consumer pays the phone rental so they have the final say over whether they want to receive advertising calls or not.

Seven Years Of Bad Luck For Your Argument

[Steve B]

This is a variation of the "broken window fallacy" (a hooligan who breaks windows is arguably a boon to the economy because he generates demand for the glass industry).

The flaw in the "broken window fallacy" is that in the absence of the hooligan the extra money spent on glass would not vanish, but would instead be spent elsewhere. Similarly, any money not spent on products advertised by telephone spamming would not vanish, but would (all together now) be spent elsewhere. The money spent on telespamming services themselves would instead be spent on other, legitimate, forms of marketing. Heck, maybe the telespammers themselves could apply their marginal skills to working at inbound call centers, so that when I want to do business on the phone I won't have to wait on hold until I grow a long white beard.

What is the real issue?

[KernelHappy]

What are we really arguing about here? Are we contemplating whether or not such a list is unconstitutional? Maybe it's whether or not unsolicited phone calls are invasions of privacy? Is all this a debate over whether or not telemarketing is free speach?

As I see it, the issue is; does a person have a right to empower the government to prevent a party from calling them.

Lets compare a restraining order and a do not call list. Given the example of a party with 30 people standing in a room. A person with a restraining order against them may not be allowed to enter the room because the party that placed the order against them is present. In this case that persons right to free speech was impeded since they can't speak their message to the 29 other people present. Now contrast that with a do not call list, a party is empowering the government on their behalf to tell multiple parties tthat they do not want to receive their solicitations. The arrangement is mutually beneficial (no wasted resource, no undesired interruptions) and it doesn't prevent those multiple parties from contacting other people, only myself.

Now the last I checked restraining orders weren't considered unconstitutional. All you need for a restraining order is some shred of evidence that you're being harassed by a person. Restraining orders do seriously inhibit free speech, but we seem ok with empowering the government in such cases anyway because it's usually for the benefit of a party.

Maybe in a perfect world the existence of the list would be enough, companies wouldn't want to call those people for the sheer reason they've expressed their disdain for telemarketers and the government wouldnt' hhve to enforce the list on our behalf. But people are people and they are going to call anyway, therefor I want to empower the government on my behalf to prevent them from calling me. It's not my business nor my desire to prevent them from calling anyone else, just from calling me. I'm not impinging their right to free speech any more than if I hang up on them when they called me, I'm just saving them the call and me the time.

Re:What is the real issue?

[fucksl4shd0t]

What are we really arguing about here? Are we contemplating whether or not such a list is unconstitutional? Maybe it's whether or not unsolicited phone calls are invasions of privacy? Is all this a debate over whether or not telemarketing is free speach?

Yes, exactly what we're discussing. :) I agree with the rest of your post, but it wasn't in the scope of the discussion we were having. The Denver judge is using Free Speech to try to knock down the do-not-call list, so we were discussing whether or not such a list violates Free Speech. I agree with you, however, that it's not actually a Free Speech issue. The Denver judge is smoking crack.

Re:What is the real issue?

[zurab]

What are we really arguing about here? Are we contemplating whether or not such a list is unconstitutional? Maybe it's whether or not unsolicited phone calls are invasions of privacy? Is all this a debate over whether or not telemarketing is free speach?

You hit it on the head. This should not be a free speech issue. Anyone trying to argue around free speech against telemarketers is going to lose that argument. Everyone has "free speech" rights. But, they don't have the right to trespass, or invade your privacy. Again, not free speech related.

Now the last I checked restraining orders weren't considered unconstitutional. All you need for a restraining order is some shred of evidence that you're being harassed by a person.

As far as your restraining order comparison, however, I don't find it convincing since restraining orders are granted by judges in a specific scenario against a specific person. The situation is different from the do-not-call list altogether.

I want to empower the government on my behalf to prevent them from calling me.

You have to be careful with the reasons you state with such "empowerment" for you may not have that power yourself to grant it to your gov't (unless you change the Constitution). i.e., you don't have a right to "empower" gov't to trump others' free speech rights. But you do have a right to complain about and demand reasonable privacy and trespassing regulations. Again, this is not a free speech issue and any argument based on that, IMO, will and should lose.

opt-in vs. opt-out

[siskbc]

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different.

The difference here is that this is an opt-in list (ie, I have to take action to prevent telemarketers from reaching me), as opposed to an opt-out list, where the free speech of telemarketers would be abridged.

I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.

The DNC list is similar. If it were a blanket "no telemarketing" law that placed people on the list unless they personally removed themselves, that would likely be a huge free speech violation. But at the point where I have told them NOT to contact me, they're obliged to cease. The DNC list simply serves as an efficient means of processing my request not to be disturbed. However, it is fundamentally no different on the phone vs. at my door - I have personally requested not to be disturbed, and they are required to honor that request.

Re:opt-in vs. opt-out

[the argonaut]

I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.

Not entirely correct. Your "no soliciting" sign is generally about as meaningless as declaring the sky is purple (setting aside the question of air pollution and sunsets for a moment), at least in the US. Unless your municipality has an ordinance providing for some sort of enforcement mechanism, a door2door solicitor or canvasser still can knock on your door to their heart's content, although as you correctly stated, if you tell him to leave he have to leave, because at that point he becomes a trespasser.

Furthermore, if in the case of political or religious canvassers, they can ignore your "no soliciting" sign period, as political and religious speech (as noted numerous times here and elsewhere) is afforded a higher degree of protection and local governments cannot restricting them other than time they can canvass (generally before 9pm is okay). Cantwell v. State of Connecticut (310 U.S. 296 (1940)), "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton, Ohio" (536 US 150 (2002)) For example, cities and counties can ban d2d solicitors, but not political or religious canvassers. Martin v. City of Struthers (319 U.S. 141 (1943))

In conclusion, what you really want is a "no trespassing" sign. That pretty much covers everybody.

Mandatory Disclaimer: IANALY(et), but in a previous life spent waaaaaay too much time in far too many courtrooms across the country getting charges dropped against my canvassers...

Re:govt our savior? lemme be the sceptic for a min

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would Billy Graham get involved in this?

The FCC Rules are different.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was explained in detail by the TCPALaw.com site. The FCC rules do not distinguish calls based on content - they distinguish on the intent of the caller. The FCC rules at 47 CFR 64.1200 define "telephone solicitation" as a call or message initiate for the purpose of a sales call.

That is a very important distinction in First Amendment law.

The FCC rules have been around since 1992, and they were supposed to be the ones to create a national do-not-call list.... they didn't in 1992, and by 2000 it was clear one was needed so the FTC started taking steps to see if they could fill the gap. Then last year the FCC decided they didn't want the FTC to have all the glory, so they jumped on the bandwagon.

Can't resist

[Anonymous Coward]

(Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)

Well then, Domo Arigoto, Mr. Lizardo

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Change the Do-Not-Call List to cover all types of calls. No exemptions, period. Let people remove themselves from the list if this "all or nothing" approach does not suit them.
2) Implement the DNC list on October 1st, as planned.
3) Over the next 3 months (or 6 months, or however long it takes), create the ability for people to choose what types of calls they want blocked.
4) People who are on the DNC list can then "opt-in" for polical or charity calls if they miss receiving them

Is this so difficult? Are the politicians who are so quick to get on the DNC bandwagon afraid to see how many people don't want to take politcal calls? Are they afraid of being labeled "anti-charity"

Flowchart for First Amendment tests.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "crap" but the decision is wrong. There is some infringment of speech here, but it is a permissible regulation of commercial speech. There are LOTS fo regulation of speech.. libel laws... making threats ... truth in advertising ... no billboards in certain locations.

As a programmer. I like flowcharts. This is the best explination I have ever found for understanding how First Amendment stuff is decided:

http:/www.tcpalaw.com/free/speech.pdf

Since the FCC rules (depend on the intent of the caller) are differenet from the FTC rules (depend on the content of the call) the are less subject to challenge.

Leave West alone, he did the right thing.

[raehl]

West's ruling wasn't a "Telemarketers have the right to call you ruling", it was a simple "Federal agencies can't just go running around making rules because they feel like it" ruling. While it was unfortunate that this put a speed bump in the DNC list, I would hope the vast majority of /.ers would agree that federal agencies being able to willy nilly create rules is just as bad, if not worse, than telemarketers being able to call you at dinner.

Forcing the good stuff to go through the correct process ensures that the bad stuff can't skip the correct process.

Now, Mr. Nottingham, well, he's an idiot.

Re:Leave West alone, he did the right thing.

[JuggleGeek]

West's ruling wasn't a "Telemarketers have the right to call you ruling", it was a simple "Federal agencies can't just go running around making rules because they feel like it" ruling.

Bull shit. The Do Not Call list wasn't something the FTC just made up on their own. A law was passed, and the money was alocated to have the FTC run the DNC list. Congress voted on it. The judge pretended that none of that happened.

The next day, many congressmen were quoted saying that the ruling was ridiculous, and in one day, they made it damn clear to that judge that the FTC *did indeed have the approval of congress*.

If he had been paying attention at all, he would have known that before. In fact, I think he probably did - but the ATA bought him off.

He deserves no slack. He's just a shill for the telemarketers.

Cost to the recipient

[The Monster]

Junk fax laws are an entirely different animal. They make it illegal to make someone else pay for unwanted communication, . . . Where there is no direct financial harm to the recipient, such as the DNC list law

If a telemarketer calls my cell phone, and I answer the call, it costs me 25 cents even if I dump the call within the first minute. That's more than the cost of a sheet of paper and some toner or ink to receive a junk fax. It's a considerable amount more than the measurable cost of receiving spam, for which California is going to start fining a grand per instance.

Re:Cost to the recipient

[mkldev]

If they are aware that it is a cell phone, it is illegal for them to call you at that number without your explicit authorization to do so. Thanks to modern technology and the availability of number block checking, it is rare for any telemarketing company not to know that a number is a cell phone....

Thus, odds are, if anybody calls you on your cell phone, it probably is someone to whom you gave your number (possibly accidentally) rather than a random telemarketer. If it is a random telemarketer, tell them that it is a cell phone. If they ever call you again, you can sue.

I hereby declare

[ChaoticLimbs]

I hereby and forthwith declare my personal telephone handset to be a private network which is unavailable for public use. Any attempt to circumvent my nonexistant security measures will be prosecuted under Federal Law. The ringer mechanism, and associated hardware is OFF LIMITS to unauthorised personnell. Consider this to be public notice persuant to the DMCA and other laws applying to network and computer security. This device is listed as a class C computing device. Therefore, laws pertaining to private resources on a public network apply to my hardware and the ring signal detect hardware. From this day forward, none other than those I authorise may use that resource. I also hereby authorise my personal friends who are close enough to know my dog's name , the color of my car, and my children's current favorite colors to use my telephone between the hours of 10am and 6pm MST. Other use is not permitted, and is considered by me to be a criminal trespass in the fourth degree.
I am not kidding.

fox guarding the henhouse

[Wansu]

"The FCC is coming to the aid of the FTC because of the recent lawsuit filed against the FTC over the list."

With a corporate butt smoocher like Michael Powell at the helm of the FCC, the telespammers are probably ecstatic.

I would mod your comment a 6 if I could.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Re:How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights

[Exousia]

The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard

By whom? Not simply by anyone you choose. To know the intent of the law you must study the history of the law. Free speech and free press were primarily designed to grant unlimited *political* speech. You can go in public and shout your brains out. You can picket the U.S. Capitol. You can start your own newspaper and print whatever you want (mostly.) (No guarantee anyone will buy it.) You have the right to redress the government. You have *no* right to be heard by private citizens who wish to deflect your voice, by either shouting you down, wearing headphones to drown you out, or by entering into their private property.

Calling someone on the phone essentially violates privacy. You are not physically allowed to enter someone's home without their permission just because you think you have the right to an audience of your "free speech." And if the judges are consistent they will come down on privacy rights. Privacy trumps the "freedoms" of others in many ways every day. Just try violating a restraining order and see what happens when you insist on your free speech "rights."

Valdrax, you don't get it....

[Genjurosan]

The FACT is:

MY phone, IS, my personal and private property. The hardware that allows that line to ring to device that converts electrical signal to audio is in fact, owned by the private citizen. I'm unsure how old you are; however, the law you are talking about that is on the books, had to do with the fact that; not very long ago, the phones were not owned by the consumer, they were leased equipment. That paved the way for telemarketing.

Re:Why so many problems

[M. Silver]

Seconded... we've had it statewide for some months now, and after the first couple of cases (a few Florida companies who Just Didn't Get It, as I recall) with hefty fines attached, the calls just stopped. I get the occasional nonprofit call, but there's a considerably more limited number of those, and when you hang up midway through the spiel they take the hint... you don't even have to take the time to request they remove you.

ex-fucking-actly!!

[swschrad]

their right to wave their fists around ends where my nose begins, AKA my rights to free association are at least equal to theirs to free speech. what part of NO can they not understand? the right to free speech does not mean we are forced to listen to their nonsense.

and if they don't want the government enforcing the no-call list, we'll just have to see if Osama-Yo-Momma's free for the job.....

There *IS* a do-not-mail list

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is such a list, and it has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. Go to the local Post Office, ask for form 1500 (or download it off of the web site). It's an Application for Listing and/or Prohibitory Order. The form says that it's for preventing unwanted sexually oriented advertising in your mail - but per Rowan v. USPS (1970 I believe) the recipient of the mailing has complete, unfettered, and unreviewable discretion as to what is and is not considered an erotic/pandering advertisement. This means that you can consider a dry goods catalog to be such an advertisement.

Open the offending piece of junk mail, and attach it to the form. Initial Box 1, check sub-box A, and fill in the Mailer's Name/address on the lines below (take it from their return address). Sign the form. Date the form. Then you can take the form to your local post office, but they'll likely want to argue with you.

What I do is to simply stuff the form I signed and the junk mail into a nice envelope. Put a 37 cent stamp on the damn thing (no matter how much it weighs), and send it to:

Prohibitory Order Processing Center
USPS
PO Box 3744
Memphis, TN 38173-0744

Sometime within 2 weeks to 2 months you will get a letter from the USPS with a Prohibitory Order (PO) inside against the mailer. The mailer must, within 30 days of receipt of the PO, must remove you from their lists. They can not sell your name, rent your name, lease your name, or otherwise use it to send anything to anyone (regardless of spelling, etc) to the address listed on the PO for 5 years from the date of issuance of the PO, or from the date you last requested enforcement.

If the morons DO send you more junk mail, you simply open it, and write across the front:

I received this on MM/DD/YYYY in violation of Prohibitory Order # and SIGN IT.

Stuff it back into an envelope, and mail it back to the Prohib Order Proc Ctr. They'll review it, and issue a Complaint against the mailer.

After a complaint, they usually get the message and stop. Some are real pricks and don't. So they get one or two Complaints against them before the Proc Ctr. makes a Determination and sends it to the Law Department.

After the Law Dept. contacts them, that's usually it. If it's not - then the USPS will have the local US Attorney sue the mailer in Federal Court (free to you, on your behalf) to enforce the statute.

This works. It's free. I've been using it for years, have a stack of PO's from every address I've lived at in the past decade, and receive practically NO junk mail at all (one off's from some new restaurant once in a while, and I mark them REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER and let the Post Office deal with it... If I get a second item, I file a PO against it...).

Downside: 1) Some paperwork, 2) Dealing with absolutely moronic mail carriers who get pissed at having to accept REFUSED mailings, 3) Dealing with moronic mailers who don't believe that they must comply with the Prohibitory Order, 4) Getting your letter carrier pissed at you because they must now sort out all those ADVO & Val-Pak mailings that they used to simply stuff into mailboxes willy-nilly (since you have a PO, they can't put it in your box - it's illegal. So they have to actually look at them...).

Oh, and the Proc Ctr still tries to tell me how to "get off lists" and claims it will work, but those methods (DMA, Experian, etc.) never worked for me - the only thing that does work is the Prohibitory Order method... 100%.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...Soon there will be no telemarketing industry left...

OH WHAT A FUCKEN HAPPY DAY THAT WILL BE!!!! woooooohooooooo! I can't wait...

Realistically - they'll start calling some other suckers in other countries... It'll take a while for them to wake up to the insanity... A couple of generations... until then, the profit is secure.

Think I'm kidding? Just look at the tactics of the tobacco industry...

But it is publicly accessible...

[Robber Baron]

What the (IMHO idiotic) Denver Judge fails to understand is that my personal telephone is not a public forum. As such, it is not subject to any First Amendment considerations.

You may be correct in the second part, that your phone isn't subject to the 1st amendment, but the first part...that your phone is not a public forum may not be entirely true. Your phone is a public utility, with a publically available directory and an unrestricted ability for other users to dial any number listed in that directory. Telephone users have lived with that reality for years now.

If my telephone is a free-speech public forum, then one could easily argue that anyone should be able to knock on my front door and demand to be allowed into my house to make their sales pitch under the U.S. Constitution. They're not -- and neither is my phone.

Here's where your analogy loses its validity. No-one would argue that anyone should, because of free speech, be allowed to force himself into your home and force you to listen to his speech. However, what I AM allowed to do is walk up to your front door, knock on it, and state my business (I'm not sure if "free speech" should even enter into the discussion here...more like limits to property ownership). I have that right in many jurisdictions, whether there are "No Trespassing" signs posted or not. You may at that point, ask me to leave, which I am then obliged to do. You might liken your phone to your sidewalk/front door, which is publicly accessable, just like your phone is. When a telemarketer calls, you can simply tell them you don't wish to talk to them...the entire exercise should take all of 15-20 seconds. Or you could do what I do: Let the answering machine answer all of the incoming calls. I haven't talked to a telemarketer in years.

Don't get me wrong, I despise telemarketers. However, I despise that much more politicians who legislate away more of our freedoms, especially when I don't believe that this legislation is necessary. I'd much rather see them try to take on spam...telemarketers don't bother me enough to warrant IMO any sort of regulation.

Business shouldn't be protected by the constitutio

[nbahi15]

We should overturn Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific, and regain our freedom. In case your wondering that is the case where we lost control of our destiny.

BTW I think the do not call registry is a wonderful thing and we need many more like it. How about a nobillboardsinmycity list. Or the noadvertisementsontelevision list.

Hope the court stikes it down

[Anonymous Coward]

so that the exclusion to non-profits and politicians is thrown out.

Looking at the speed of congress on passing a bill authorizing the FTC to enforce the current regulations, it is easy to see that the politicians are aware at how important, and popular this law is. This is the only chance at leverage to get an all-encompassing law that also limits calls from non-profits and politicians. Or at least the non-profits.

There needs to be another amendment as well. Whether or not the non-profits are finally excluded, it should be a violation, with the same penalties, if any organization, including non-profits and survey companies use the do not call list as a calling list, even if they are allowed to call.

And as for survey companies, I've already received several calls from survey companies push-marketing another company that hired them in their so-called survey to get around my state's do-not-call list.

Re:Hope the court stikes it down

[stanmann]

Those "survey calls" are almost certainly a violation. Collect their information, and complain. Most states with a DNC pass part of the fine on to the person "violated".

Your phone IS your personal domain-see AT&Tbre

[Starrider]

Ever since the AT&T breakup, anything on your side of the demarcation point is your property, your responsibility. The phone company's lines end at the demarcation point.

This is basic telecommunications. This is why a Bell can't tell you how to wire your home telephone network. This is also wh y you can put any phone connected to anything on your side of the demarcation point.

**Side note** its a shame cable internet isn't treated the same way. Cable companies shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or cannot connect to "thier network" since it's in your home.

TIA

[Anonymous Coward]

As a (damned) foreigner, I'd like to know... who is going to maintain the DNC list?

What does this list do for MLM recruiters though?

[mark-t]

Will the DNC list apply to these assorted MLM recruiters that one hears from almost other week saying "We're expanding in your area and need some talented people blah blah blah blah blah..." I have a listed number in my local phone book for the convenience of people who may wish to locate me, not for the convenience of people that want me to help them get rich.

The problem I can see with trying to apply the fine to these MLM guys is that 99 times out of a hundred, they probably don't make enough money to pay the fine for calling a # on the do not call list, so there's not a lot you can do to penalize them. In fact, if they were making enough money to be able to pay the fines, they wouldn't have to be resorting to cold calling numbers out of the phone book in the first place as a means of getting recruits. So the question here is, how does this DNC list affect people who are calling that are not affiliated with the any national teleservices organization?

I don't care if the FBI enforces this...

[Zathras11]

as long as SOMEONE does! The claim that a
companies 1st amendment rights [SIC] are violated
is specious. Nobody has the right to harass
someone, which is of course what this is all
about. Just because I have a telephone, it
doesn't give you the right to call me. If your
product was so great, and I needed it, I would
find you! Hard selling may work in the short
term, but you will not get repeat business this
way. You will ALWAYS have to keep finding new
customers, which means MORE work.

You, libertarian?

[Thinkit3]

Yeah yeah most of /. is. Using fewer laws is nice, but this wouldn't fly. This means any person trying to contact you could get arrested or sued. Once you start trying to make a line between businesses and people you start making too many laws.

Re: You, libertarian?

[metalligoth]

Well, as a matter of fact, there shouldn't be a distinction. You are correct in that anyone could be sued for walking onto your property whether by primitive means (i.e. walking) or by more "magical" modern transportation such as a telephone, things that our forefathers never had to deal with. The same laws should apply to these modern conveniences that apply to walking to your door. If someone knocks on your door, and then refuses to leave, they are trespassing. Likewise, you have a right to put up a "No Trespassing" sign, thus serving them advance warning. How is a person using a telephone any different?

Not a religion or political issue

[siskbc]

Furthermore, if in the case of political or religious canvassers, they can ignore your "no soliciting" sign period, as political and religious speech

For what it's worth, since these groups are specifically also protected by the DNC list, it doesn't apply and might be a reason the DNC list was specifically crafted this way.

For example, cities and counties can ban d2d solicitors, but not political or religious canvassers.

As above, this shows that it must be legal to block non-"speechy" contact like sales, as opposed to telephone proselytizing (does that happen?) or political messages, etc. This suggests to me that the DNC list is perfectly constitutional.

Whatever the wording, I believe there is a way I can write "Don't F***ing knock on my door" and people legally have to respect that, is there not? "No trespassing" works for me. However that is changed to work for the telephone, there seems to be a constitutional way of doing it, and from what I can see, the crafters of the DNC list program have mostly anticipated what's in your response by excluding the groups they have.

Re:Not a religion or political issue

[the argonaut]

Agreed. Although I think the analogy to the DNC list would not be posting "no trespassing" sign as much as posting a "no soliciting" and then having an ordinance (or in this case, fed. regulation) that requires compliance.

I think my point was that what some have argued is that excluding charities and political entities from calling was an attempt to keep within the boundaries of previous court decisions giving higher protection to political and religious speech. A "no trespassing" sign for telephones would be less likely to be upheld. The Denver federal court is out of line with previous cases and will most likely be overturned on appeal.

Re:What does this list do for MLM recruiters thoug

[stanmann]

IF they can't pay the fine then seize their assets. Problem solved.

Damn libertarians.

[Thinkit3]

Too logical!