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

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.

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

[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

[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: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: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.

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: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!

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: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?

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.

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: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...