Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Maybe the ACLU should get into this. How can a libertarian argue for laws that give more ability to sue?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
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 can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
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.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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?
The bold print giveth, and the fine print taketh away
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.
Like what I said? You might like my music
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?
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. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
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.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
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.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
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.
When the profit is made to the determent of another person, even a single person, it is immoral.
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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!
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
Like what I said? You might like my music
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.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
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.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.