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

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: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: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?

[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.