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."
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.
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.
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.
Thomas Galvin
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...
Am I a hipster-doofus?
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.
Urantian -- and proud of it!
I'm unplugging the phone and going back to carrier pigeons.
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.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
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.
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?
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.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
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.)
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat