This is a variation of the "broken window fallacy" (a hooligan who breaks windows is arguably a boon to the economy because he generates demand for the glass industry).
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.
We are still listed despite having done what we're supposed to: Discovering the spammer, warning the spammer
No, what you are supposed to do is prevent the spammer from continuing to spam. Choking his outgoing bandwidth down to a normal level of use (a few dozen messages per day) will do until you complete the legal meeble of disconnecting him and billing him the cleanup fee (you do have a stiff cleanup fee in your standard contract, right?).
The DDoS attacks began in earnest about the time there was a shouting match between NANAE, the Usenet Group used by SPEWS, and another web site I devoted my time to tracking down the Administrator of SPEWS
So, are you going to name this other web site, or are you going to admit to being a sanctimonious hypocrite?
As I see it, as a matter of principle, any action taken by a citizen to restrict the Freedoms of another citizen requires a high level of justification.
You don't have any freedom to enter my private property in the first place without my consent, outside of a few specifically carved exceptions (none of which encompasses telephone or e-mail spam). QED
What I object to, and for which I have not seen any precedent, is the idea that you can *pre-emptively* restrict the Free Speech rights of *an entire group* just on your say-so.
Hokay. You have until 6:30 PM EST 28 Sep 2003 to tell me that I am not permitted to glue flyers bearing my message all over the side of your house.
If you haven't responded by then, your own argument supports my freedom to do so.
(Oops. I apologize for the egocentricity of the above analogy. Of course, I meant that you have until then to tell each individual person one at a time not to do that, or else concede that they all have that permission.
The constitution itself does not address the matter directly either way. Subsequent Supreme Court precedents have defined the Bill of Rights as extending to Corporations - being legally viewed as a collective of People.
It is well established that a corporation does not have the same free speech rights as an individual. If I say that Windows XP never ever crashes under any circumstances, all that will happen is that people will laugh at me. If Microsoft Corporation makes that assertion in its advertising, the bunko squad will be all over them.
The fundamental difference between drug prohibition and spam prohibition is that drug transactions involve two parties who agree on keeping the matter secret from the police, but spamming involves a party (the recipient) who will gladly give the police all the assistance they require (provided that he is convinced that the police will actually do something).
Thus, there is simply no comparison in terms of practical enforceability.
Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded room is not protected speech. Urging an assembled mob to violence is not protected speech. Openly plotting to kill your leader is not protected speech.
Using other people's property without permission is not protected speech.
And a bill outlawing telephone solitications from political organizations would be defeated by about the same margins as this one was passed
Normally, that would be true, but the circumstances at the moment are not normal. Many millions of voters feel that they have been promised that the deluge of junk phone calls will finally end next week, and God help any politician who sits back and lets some judge take that away.
and probably would violate 1st Amendment.
Nope, any more than a prohibition against blaring political advertising from a sound truck on a residential street at 3 AM violates the First Amendment. Restrictions based on personal property rights and time-place-and-manner restrictions against public nuisances are routinely upheld by the courts, so long as they are not excessively burdensome and are content-neutral (the latter being the point at issue in the Denver ruling).
Solution: Provide a mechanism for us to block ALL calls, including religious and political calls. It should be easy enough to set up a list of check boxes on the do-not-call registry web site, identifying various kinds of calls. That way, if you wanted to block religious and political, but accept the sales pitches, you could do so.
But then again, can you see the people in Gov't who make these rules blocking themselves from making such calls?
They really don't want to, but the wrath of public opinion has been so seriously aroused that they probably have to if they hope to keep their jobs.
Well, the well-connected telemarketers (he-he) claim they are pretty certain that if they push the "all or nothing" rule hard enough - again, what it means is that you either pass the law with NO exceptions (which is not going to happen - politicians will not deprive themselves of this marketing channel)
I wouldn't be too sure about that. The public is well and truly howling for blood on this issue -- if the only way Congress can overcome today's Denver court ruling is to pass a new bill with no loopholes, then they may just have to bite the bullet and do just that.
I can understand the hypocrisy of politicians removing themselves from the Do No Call regulations, but how is the average American going to react when they get 15 calls to vote for their local congressmen, city council members or Senator come election time. Didn't we sign up for the Do Not Call list, dear? Oh, yes, but Politicians can still call you.
The solution to that problem is to tell the pest that you are on the Do Not Call list, and simply refuse to listen when they explain that they are exempt. Armor yourself in invincible ignorance on this issue. Basically, act like one of those folks who thinks that Elvis is alive, that the moon landings were filmed in Arizona, etc.
If enough people stick to their guns in that manner, then even nominally "exempt" outfits will find themselves forced to use the DNC list as a matter of practical necessity.
If a citizen wants to choose to have a telephone hooked up to the entire rest of the world, then that citizen should accept the responsibilities that come along with that.
If you don't want strangers calling you and selling you things, there are several solutions to that problem that don't involve the government.
If a citizen wants to choose to have a house linked by roads to the entire rest of the world, then that citizen should accept the responsibilities that come along with that.
If you don't want strangers coming in and stealing your things, there are several solutions to that problem that don't involve the government.
Oh, the DMA has already done that to themselves, by launching a legal attack that has had no effect other than to generate an enormous amount of publicity for the Do Not Call list.
Paul is in the minority of a lot of votes (sometimes a minority of one) because he takes a very hard-nosed limited-government position (he once ran as a Libertarian candidate for President, but then decided that it was more useful to join the Republicans).
The rest -- I don't know, maybe they represent districts where telepestering is a major industry or something.
For that matter, lots of legitimate incoming call centers are short-staffed (as evidenced by the time I have to wait on hold when I want to talk to a business on the phone). Let the obsolete telemarketers look for work in that market -- it uses similar skills.
It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's [sic] area.
It's not at all clear. A bill was passed by the Congress and signed by President Bush directing the FTC to run the Do Not Call list, describing the penalties for telemarketers who called numbers on the list, and allocating the money from those fines to the maintenance of the list.
Basically, the judge ruled that Congress had made a clerical error in not explicitly stating that the FTC was authorized to do that which Congress had just directed them to do and given them a budget to do.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
No, what you are supposed to do is prevent the spammer from continuing to spam. Choking his outgoing bandwidth down to a normal level of use (a few dozen messages per day) will do until you complete the legal meeble of disconnecting him and billing him the cleanup fee (you do have a stiff cleanup fee in your standard contract, right?).
I devoted my time to tracking down the Administrator of SPEWS
So, are you going to name this other web site, or are you going to admit to being a sanctimonious hypocrite?
You don't have any freedom to enter my private property in the first place without my consent, outside of a few specifically carved exceptions (none of which encompasses telephone or e-mail spam). QED
Hokay. You have until 6:30 PM EST 28 Sep 2003 to tell me that I am not permitted to glue flyers bearing my message all over the side of your house.
If you haven't responded by then, your own argument supports my freedom to do so.
(Oops. I apologize for the egocentricity of the above analogy. Of course, I meant that you have until then to tell each individual person one at a time not to do that, or else concede that they all have that permission.
My condolences, and I'm sorry the doctor wasn't able to completely repair the damage from that blow to your head.
It is well established that a corporation does not have the same free speech rights as an individual. If I say that Windows XP never ever crashes under any circumstances, all that will happen is that people will laugh at me. If Microsoft Corporation makes that assertion in its advertising, the bunko squad will be all over them.
American law is (with some lapses) very protective of personal property rights. Spam is a property rights issue.
The fundamental difference between drug prohibition and spam prohibition is that drug transactions involve two parties who agree on keeping the matter secret from the police, but spamming involves a party (the recipient) who will gladly give the police all the assistance they require (provided that he is convinced that the police will actually do something).
Thus, there is simply no comparison in terms of practical enforceability.
Using other people's property without permission is not protected speech.
End of argument.
Since when are Anne Rice novels within the purview of /. ?
If one accepted the rejection of property rights implicit in these two decisions, it would be legal to deface the White House itself to sell Viagra.
Normally, that would be true, but the circumstances at the moment are not normal. Many millions of voters feel that they have been promised that the deluge of junk phone calls will finally end next week, and God help any politician who sits back and lets some judge take that away.
and probably would violate 1st Amendment.
Nope, any more than a prohibition against blaring political advertising from a sound truck on a residential street at 3 AM violates the First Amendment. Restrictions based on personal property rights and time-place-and-manner restrictions against public nuisances are routinely upheld by the courts, so long as they are not excessively burdensome and are content-neutral (the latter being the point at issue in the Denver ruling).
But then again, can you see the people in Gov't who make these rules blocking themselves from making such calls?
They really don't want to, but the wrath of public opinion has been so seriously aroused that they probably have to if they hope to keep their jobs.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. The public is well and truly howling for blood on this issue -- if the only way Congress can overcome today's Denver court ruling is to pass a new bill with no loopholes, then they may just have to bite the bullet and do just that.
Yes, and now we can put the same sign on our phone lines.
The solution to that problem is to tell the pest that you are on the Do Not Call list, and simply refuse to listen when they explain that they are exempt. Armor yourself in invincible ignorance on this issue. Basically, act like one of those folks who thinks that Elvis is alive, that the moon landings were filmed in Arizona, etc.
If enough people stick to their guns in that manner, then even nominally "exempt" outfits will find themselves forced to use the DNC list as a matter of practical necessity.
If you don't want strangers calling you and selling you things, there are several solutions to that problem that don't involve the government.
If a citizen wants to choose to have a house linked by roads to the entire rest of the world, then that citizen should accept the responsibilities that come along with that.
If you don't want strangers coming in and stealing your things, there are several solutions to that problem that don't involve the government.
Hey, Dubya's down with that....
FUCK YOU.
Oh, the DMA has already done that to themselves, by launching a legal attack that has had no effect other than to generate an enormous amount of publicity for the Do Not Call list.
"If I try to dump a bunch of telemarketers in there with them, they'll be bitching at me until the end of time...."
The rest -- I don't know, maybe they represent districts where telepestering is a major industry or something.
For that matter, lots of legitimate incoming call centers are short-staffed (as evidenced by the time I have to wait on hold when I want to talk to a business on the phone). Let the obsolete telemarketers look for work in that market -- it uses similar skills.
It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's [sic] area. It's not at all clear. A bill was passed by the Congress and signed by President Bush directing the FTC to run the Do Not Call list, describing the penalties for telemarketers who called numbers on the list, and allocating the money from those fines to the maintenance of the list. Basically, the judge ruled that Congress had made a clerical error in not explicitly stating that the FTC was authorized to do that which Congress had just directed them to do and given them a budget to do.
Hell, heroin trafficking is more respectable than telemarketing -- at least the junkies actually want heroin.