Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court OKs FTC's Do-Not-Call List
GTRacer writes "The USA Today website just posted a report that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) has upheld the FTC's national Do Not Call registry. In their decision, the Court found the list to be 'a valid commercial speech regulation...without burdening an excessive amount of speech.' The telemarketers had challenged the constitutionality of blocking commercial free speech while allowing charities and select others to continue phone solicitation. Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?" The court's decision is available to read.
It also exempts long-distance phone companies
I don't see any reference to this exemption at www.donotcall.gov. Where does it say that phone companies and airlines are exempt?
Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?
Where's the double standard? They have yet to challenge the legality of you not picking up your phone.
It is refreshing to see the Courts stepping forward to reassert the legal precedent that free speach does not equal unlimited commercial speach. With the continuing growth of political influence of coporations both in the U.S. and world wide and the increasing rights granted to the these coporate entities, a clear delinitation of the the rights of individuals (as guaranteed by the Constitution) vs. the rights that have been accorded to corporations (largely as a result of campaign contributions ... giving rise to the related debate of does $ = speach in the political arena)is certainly called for. Despite the cat calls of the much of the right wing of american politics decrying the "black robed tyranny" of the american judiciary, I for one am glad to see the legal system prtecting the rights of individuals and refusing to water down the rights granted to individuals by affording equal footing to artifical entites such as corporations! Three Cheers for the proletariot! ;)
If music be the food of love, play on...
-
I don't think anyone was terribly surprised that the registry was upheld. There was a lot of public support and this is, after all, a big election year.
I think there were a lot of people concerned that the court wouldn't respond this way. The telemarketing industry has deep pockets to spend on lobbying and/or buying out congressmen/women's votes. (Granted, they aren't the only industry that does this, just the only ones that matter in the particular case.) Congress has shown time and again they could care less what their constituents really want, just as long as their industry masters are happy. Yes, even in election years. Besides, what do they really have to worry about? Most average joe citizens don't even pay attention to the local news, they're not to likely to hear about how their congressperson shoved a last-minute addon to some bill, with the addon being totally anti-consumer.In theory, the fact that this is an election year doesn't matter for the judge. Appeals court judges are appointed for life precisely to put them above politics (which moves the politics to the nomination and approvals side of things).
Popularity can get the law passed, but only the constitution (and the common law) go into whether the judge approves it.
In theory.
They should be GLAD to have people block their calls, because the people blocking their calls are (probably with some exceptions) the people who aren't going to buy anything from them. It eliminates wasted phone time. Now they should rejoice that they can cut costs by focusing on the few people who actually WILL buy from them, probably just to talk to another human being (that is, if it's not an automated system).
Esoteric reference.
Can someone explain why the telemarketers are fighting this with everything at their disposal, when this list actually helps them? By excluding the numbers of people that are not interested in receiving telemarketing solicitations, it increases the likelihood that a particular call is to someone who is willing to buy. The DNC list also has other benefits that have not been foreseen by the telemarketers. For example, telephone numbers for fax machines and modems can be placed on this list so that telemarketers don't waste their time calling them.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Define telemarketing calls. What I think will happen is companies will adapt with something to obscure the dubious title of telemarketing companies. Think about it for a second... So company X cannot call you soliciting products, but a charity can still call you. So now using some lax LLC laws, a telemarketer can reinvent itself as some form of charity Company X charity... Sure they can pitch something honest sounding but let's take a look at namebranding for a second...
charity: "Good day sir, we're with the Microsoft Save the World foundation..."
Sure it sounds dumb, but I'm sure telemarketers will find a way around this. By the way no mention of how this includes those annoying companies calling you to do independent studies, surveys, etc. At least from what I saw on the page.
Oh well, it will be a matter of time (likely after November) where an anonymous plane mysteriously drops a bag of cash on someone politicians desk, and these laws are re-argued and reverse. Just like the Public Utility Holding Company Act, Federal Power Act, and Federal Communications Act. All down the tubes.
MoFscker
I don't recall ad-free telephones being some sort of fundamental human right. How about turning off the phone at dinner time?
I think you will find this falls under the right to privacy. I have the right to enjoy my evenings peacefully in my own home, without telemarketers calling me every half hour.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
...to get these fools who think they have a "right" to market to everyone to shut the hell up. A lot of us are sick of everything being done for profit at the expense of our own quality of life. Wouldn't it be nice if you could open your inbox, look in your mailbox, answer your phone or door, and know that there wouldn't be someone trying to sell you useless crap that you aren't interested in on the other end? How novel an idea. And then on top of all of this we get other assholes coming in trying to make money off of filtering out what we don't want disrupting us. (Privacy Manager from the phone company, or move to an ISP that has spam filtering even if they are more expensive or have other limitations you don't want) So you have to PAY to keep people from trying to sell you stuff? Has it really come to that?
This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. The America we are living in has been co-opted by people infected with a severe mental problem. That problem is the idea that you can't be "successful" unless you make more money than everyone else. When did we start encouraging this kind of thing? And Why? I suppose this is what we deserve for being a culture that worships the dollar. I'm sorry, but I'd like to be excommunicated right now. I don't want to have anything to do with people who measure their value in net worth. Instead I want to be part of a culture that that discourages stupidity. One where being able to "kick ass" or "rule" is of no value. I want to be part of a culture that realizes that if life is to be fair, we have to educate everyone and address each individual case as a society. I want to be in a culture where education is not K-12, but age four - death.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. My main point is that the DNC list wouldn't be neccessary if we hadn't fostered the ills of competetive personalities and avarice. If there wasn't a drive in our society to make the most money regardless of how good or poor your product is, this wouldn't be a problem. It wouldn't be a problem if, as a culture, we DIDN'T buy the crap that is sold via telemarketing and spam and direct mail. It especially wouldn't be a problem if instead we encouraged companies to make GOOD products and then rest on the quality of their product to sell them. After all, isn't that what competition and free market is really all about? The cream rising to the top so to speak?
I have no problem with people wanting to sell things as long as they realize it's not a right, it's a privelege. And, as the consumer, it's my right to decide on my own if the product is right for me... or even useful in any way. Sorry, but even if I was bald, I don't think I'd be buying spray on hair. It just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Un-news
I don't see how spam or telemarketing is a free speech issue any more then say, making a political speech with very loud speakers, in the middle of the night, while people are trying to sleep.
By excluding the numbers of people that are not interested in receiving telemarketing solicitations, it increases the likelihood that a particular call is to someone who is willing to buy.
They don't care much about targeting certian persons. Like spammers, they just throw as much crap out there as possible to get a greater return.
For example, telephone numbers for fax machines and modems can be placed on this list so that telemarketers don't waste their time calling them.
Telemarketers almost exclusively use powerful automated dialing systems that quickly weed out bad numbers, fax machines, etc.
One bad monkey spoils the whole barrel.
The other big difference is due to the low cost of sending spam v. the relatively high expense of placing calls. Even if the CAN-SPAM law starts getting enforced, the spammers could simply move offshore and continue their harrassment. I constantly get Italian-language spam (salami?) even though I only know about ten words of Italian. But when you factor in the costs involved, international long distance is currently too high a barrier for telemarketers to cross.
Sadly, this might all change with VoIP. "Voila-marketers" (I just made that term up) from off-shore sweatshops who can place international sales calls for almost-free just might do for the telephone what spam did for email. Scripts and canned recordings would even drastically reduce the language barriers, permitting poor English speakers to control synthesized voices that sound as smooth as James Earl Jones'. And so your prediction may unfortunately come true.
John
... and the number of telemarketing calls the judge gets at home while he's trying to eat dinner.
I don't recall ad-free telephones being some sort of fundamental human right. How about turning off the phone at dinner time? I'm sure this obvious solution never occured to those of us awaiting a call back from a job recruiter, our sick relatives at the hospital, a suicidal friend in desparate need of being talked out of doing something stupid, or a child unsure whether or not they can get a ride home from the mall... ever stop to think that I might feel obliged to answer my phone because there are more important people trying to contact me than telemarketers? And that the time I spend convincing somebody who won't take "fuck no!" for an answer could make a life-changing difference to somebody else who isn't a bottom-feeding scumbag?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
A fool and his (or her) money are soon parted. This is a fundamental truth, no matter how many laws are passed.
Ummm...the right wing wanted this just as bad as the left. The only people who did not want this law were telemarketers.
I don't see how you can claim a law that was so popular on both sides of the fence as some sort of victory for one side or another. The fact is, the right wing likes judges just fine -- when they have problems with a judge, their issue is that the judge may have overstepped his bounds (using interpretation of a case as legislation). They're elected for life (so politics won't affect their performance) because their domain is the interpretation of the existing laws, not the passing of new ones.
In a perfect world, judges would be selected based on how well they can understand the law, but since this is not one of those, fights between Dems and Reps over how conservative or liberal a judge is keeps many judges from being appointed in a timely manner.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
Why it is that non-profits and political campaigns are exempt in the first place?
... I don't want you to call, email, or mail me! Leave me the f*** alone! Don't call me; I'll call you. kthxbye.
My reaction when reading this blurb is, "Damn right, it's unfair -- ban them, too!"
I don't care if you're representing Joe Blow Lightbulbs Inc. or Mary Sue Parapalegic Midgit Orphans.org
-monique
If this was about a more neutral service, there would be serious complaints.
That's entirely the point the judges relied on to overturn the lower court. The commercial speech was excessive in its abuse of citizen's rights, and could therefore be regulated. It passed the magic, invisible, undefinable line between acceptable and non-acceptable speech.
You, sir, to put it simply, are a fool.
Before the Do Not Call list I got phone calls at all hours from telemarketers. Dinner time not excluded. (They at least had the sense to not call in the middle of the night.)
Should I then keep my phone turned off all the time?
I pay for the phone service for my own reasons and purposes. I do not pay for it for someone else to use to sell me something.
You say: "I don't recall ad-free telephones being some sort of fundamental human right."
I don't recall telemarketing being a fundamental human right either and for you to imply that telemarketers have more right to use my phone line than I have to say they should not seems to me shortsighted, ignorant and generally pretty damn stupid. Come to think of it you are probably an MBA. And what kind of twisted logic allows you to claim that their right to profit somehow trumps my right to privacy?
Tell you what. Post your phone number here. I have some used books I'd like to sell. Be glad to call you about them.
</rant>
Sorry for the rant, but I feel so much better now.
What has the parent of this only had 2 telemarketing phone calls. It's apparent that the parent of this reply is either Ghandi or does not understand that depending on the region you live in, you could get easily get 15 to 20 a day (think Florida where there's a lot of old folk that the telemarketers find easy prey to rip off).
'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.'
This little sentence is not a key part of the story -- it is a common phrase used in journalism (I have been a reporter for 2 newspapers) to basically mean, "We left a message at the last minute on their machine but they didn't call back before my deadline" but actually sounds like it's the source's fault.
thehomeland(.org)
If you want privacy from salesdrones ringing your phone, post a "DO NOT CALL" notification on the list.
The two are precisely equivalent, and equally deserving of police enforcement against people who violate your property rights by disregarding them.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The court said basically that since you can post a "No soliciting" sign and positively affirm your intention to keep solicitors from your door, you have that right and that the government is within their boundaries to pass laws enforcing your right to be left alone. So in a parallel vein, if you "post your intention to be left alone on the phone" in a public place, specifically signing up for this "do-not-call list," that it carries the same intent and it should therefore carry the same weight. And the government is equally qualified to pass a law enforcing your right to request to be left alone in this parallel case.
It's very much a common sense decision, and it was backed with lots of precedence. If you read the courts' opinions on these types of cases you'll find that most often the decisions are based on common sense rather than on some weird legal twist. Sure, the odd decision comes through occasionally, but for the most part judges do issue reasonable, understandable rulings.
John
So in a parallel vein, if you "post your intention to be left alone on the phone" in a public place, specifically signing up for this "do-not-call list," that it carries the same intent and it should therefore carry the same weight
No the intent alone does not make it valid. If I sell you something I own, that is allowed. If I sell you something you own, and refuse to let you have it if you don't pay me, that is illegal. In both cases my intent is to get money, so should the sales be just as valid? The difference is that while I have the right to not let you use something I own, just as you have the right to not let others on your property, I do not have the right to refuse to allow you to use your property, just as you do not have the right to make others not call you.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park