Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Spam United States

FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC 359

Posted by simoniker from the welcome-to-acronym-city dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC More

FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC

Comments Filter:

  • Why get the FCC involved? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) * on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:48PM (#7088957)
    Unless I misunderstand something, it seems that the primary complaint from the Denver court was that the no-call list was discriminating. Non-profit and political cold-calling was still allowed under the plan.

    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.

    • You can't really do that. Much of the justification for the DNC list is that commercial speech is treated differently from political and other speech in case law. Non-profits are not participating in commercial speech usually, and political cold-calling is purely political speech, which has the highest standards against restricting. Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain, many of the usual rulings that allow for the restriction of even political speech on your o
      • How does the federal do not call list compare to junk fax laws? Do junk fax laws exempt political and non profit groups? Would an opt-in don not call law be as constitutionalyy objectionable as a an opt out do not call law?

        • Re:Why get the FCC involved? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mkldev ( 219128 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:09PM (#7089178) Homepage
          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.

        • Junk fax laws are based on the fax that they tie up resources. Its primarily a matter of degree. While not everyone has it, caller ID and call waiting can help you avoid or block an incoming call. Also, it takes you a few seconds to hang up on a telemarketer where it takes you upwards of a minute to even determine that a fax is a junk fax while you are waiting for at least part of it to print. And how many people know how to hang up on a fax and stop it from printing? By then the "damage" is done and s

      • Re:Why get the FCC involved? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:03PM (#7089117) Journal
        Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain,

        Then why is it taxed as such? [ecommercecommission.org]. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

        Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear. You can say what you want, but I have the right to not listen. The DNC beautifully expresses my desire to not listen.

        • It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

          You seem to have your "free as in speech" mixed up with your "free as in beer".

          They are not the same.

        • Then why is it taxed as such? [ecommercecommission.org]. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

          That's a non-sequitur. The link has nothing to do with your phone number being treated as your private property, and the "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with paying to use the medium in which it is expressed.

          Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear.

          Actually, no. The US Supreme Court does not in general suppor
        • Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.

          Don't get me wrong, I want this law to win very badly. But I don't think your argument is the ticket. In my opinion, corporations are not people and therefore don't get free speech rights, and therefore don't have a right to call me. But the Nike case (and other) kind of muddied that a bit.

    • Re:Why get the FCC involved? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:01PM (#7089094) Journal
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:14PM (#7089222) Homepage
        this is discrimination
        Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.

        And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.

        To discriminate means to choose.

        If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.
        • Come on! We're not talking about political opinion, or philanthropy, we're talking about solicitation.

          Political solicitation, charitable soliciation either way it's still about money, not people or love. If they weren't soliciting, the DNC list wouldn't apply...

        • To discriminate means to choose.

          If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly

          The problem is that the discrimination is being applied to speech. The government is

    • Re:Why get the FCC involved? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgodNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:15PM (#7089231)
      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.
      • You are so right. But it's not just their right to "speech". This is about their "right" to speak explicitly *at* me, against my wishes, using equipment that I have paid for, invading the privacy of my home while they do it.

        Bastards.

    • 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 publis

  • No Calls, Period (Score:2, Interesting)

    by darkstar949 ( 697933 )
    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.

    • Re:No Calls, Period (Score:4, Informative)

      by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:15PM (#7089227)
      Actually.....

      In the US calls placed to a residential land line are paid for by the caller.

      Calls places to a cell phone are paid for by the caller AND have the potential to use the cells mins.. hence why it is illegal to call cell phones for telemarketing.

  • Did I wake up in Bizarro world today? (Score:5, Funny)

    by raehl ( 609729 ) * <(moc.oohay) (ta) (113lhear)> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:51PM (#7088982) Homepage
    Two government agencies cooperating to implement a consumer-popular policy?

    Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?

  • TPS (Score:2)

    by caluml ( 551744 )
    I joined the TPS ( Telephone Preference Service) [tpsonline.org.uk] in the UK - hey presto, 20 calls a week, down to zero. Now I don't get any calls. :( Somebody ring me :(
    But I miss the fun of being as rude and as crude as you like to the female telemarketters. Never stopped them calling though.

  • Great support (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:51PM (#7088990)
    Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.

    I guess that's what happens when an entire nation faces down an association with no lobbying skills. Now if we could just be this effective on a few of the slightly more important issues like civil rights, pre-emptive wars, and so forth.

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SparklesMalone ( 623241 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:52PM (#7088995)
    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.
    • Except of course, they would have then argued the other way - that the telemarketing firms are comercial entities advertising products for sale, and so are governed by the FTC.

      The exemption will always be there - the FTC considered it, and dropped it due to supreme court precident. The recent court ruling seems to show no understanding of the comercial vs non-comercial speach debate.

  • first amendment (Score:5, Informative)

    by ih8apple ( 607271 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:52PM (#7089001)
    From the New York Times [nytimes.com](no reg required):
    "another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

    According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

    • Re:first amendment (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xcomputer_man ( 513295 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:54PM (#7089017) Homepage
      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...
      • I certainly hope that the FCC is not successful. A government that acts above law leads to nothing good.

        I certainly hope this goes through the courts nice and speedily, and that they allow the list. After all, how many "No solicitation" signs are posted around the nation? I'm not up to snuff on case law, though I can't imagine they haven't been tested in court yet... Why would a near identical sign put up regarding telephone solicitation be any different?

        But most importantly, this sort of thing should f

        • The beauty of this... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TWX ( 665546 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:42PM (#7089466)
          ...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.
      • One thing to keep in mind is this: It's not 50 Million Americans. It's 50 Million Phone Numbers.

        Roughly 300 million people live here. But, take out cell phone numbers, and the number of "numbers" that telemarketers can call currently is far less. 50 million is a huge chunk of that.

        Consider that, in my apartment, we all have a cell phone, but it's already illegal to call a cell phone. But, we only have 1 number for the apartment. That's a 4:1 ratio, and i suspect this is duplicated quite a few places

    • Re:first amendment (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jimmcq ( 88033 )
      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?
      • It obviously doesn't, but it has to go through the process now to prove it. I still don't see how that gives the FCC any more power to enforce than the FTC, unless someone thinks the FCC pulls more "clout" somehow.
        • I'd guess they think since the FCC is responsible for governing communications that it has more jurisdiction...but as you say, it still has to wade its way through the court system.
    • That argument makes no sense though. The first amendment makes it illegal for the government to pass laws preventing telemarketers from existing at all, but it doesn't prevent people from refusing to hear the messages in a legally binding way.

      The same arguement can be used to say the right to make harassing phone calls is protected free speech. In that case, all restraining orders are invalid because they violate the first amendment.

      The do not call registry can be taken as a set of restraining orders
    • Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

      Go read the very good book "Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights" by Thom Hartman for more information. Link [amazon.com].

    • Re:first amendment (Score:3, Informative)

      by HardCase ( 14757 )
      From the New York Times(no reg required):
      "another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

      According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

      The judge ruled that the FTC could not enforce the do not call registry. He didn't say that the FCC couldn't enforce it. I guess what that means is that one of the telemarketers (or an organization) will then have to get another ruling regardi

    • This whole thing is a clear violation of the first ammendment. We are attempting to legislate that some groups may express their views by calling you and others may not. That we like one group and not the other does not matter, it is a clear violation of the first ammendment. That our representatives don't understand this is a sad, sad statement about how well they understand the constitution.

      The correct way to solve this is to de-classify corporations as individuals, and create a new category for "cor

  • Happy Dance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thomas.galvin ( 551471 ) <slashdot AT thomas-galvin DOT com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:53PM (#7089008) Homepage
    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.
  • 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
    • 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 po

  • I have an idea (Score:2, Funny)

    by PD ( 9577 ) *
    Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.

  • Behold... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrLizardo ( 264289 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:58PM (#7089058) Journal
    And you shall know that the end times have arrived because US government agencies shall cooperate to implement things the tax payers actually want! And Apple shall have the fastest computers available! Linux will go mainstream! BeOS will come back from the dead! Behold and repent for surely we have reached the end of times!

    (Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)

    -AX

  • I'm supposed to feel good about trusting this ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:58PM (#7089059)
    to Michael "One News Organization to Rule Them All And In the Darkness Bind Them" Powell?

    I'm unplugging the phone and going back to carrier pigeons.

  • As soon as all those hucksters have to close down their call centers what do you think they are going to do? Hmm, maybe try another form of direct marketing? I hear this new fangled Internet thing isn't saturated yet.

    They have not yet begun to spam.

  • Why wouldn't they comply? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tessaiga ( 697968 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:03PM (#7089123)
    I found the following quote particularly interesting:
    The Direct Marketing Association, representing more than 70 percent of the telemarketing industry, asked its members last week to abide by the list. Nearly 200 of the largest members have voiced no objection to the request and some have actively pledged to comply, association spokesman Louis Mastria said Monday.
    Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this. Effectively it lets them weed out calls to households who don't want their stuff that would waste their call times, and let them focus on spamming people who are more likely to be responsive. Given how much the telemarketing industry is focused on cranking up their purchases-per-minute, it's not surprising that many companies agreed to abide by the list.
    • There is also a small bit of fine print that you would think would motivate them quite a bit: it's federal law.

      The fact that they will hem and haw and weakly "ask" it's member to comply, even in the face of that fact, says something about the people we are dealing with (or, I guess, who are trying to forcefully deal with us.)

    • The reason that some telemarketers don't want to abide by the list is that people aren't as rational as you'd think. There are some people who simply have a very hard time saying no to telemarketers when they call, even though they know perfectly well that they don't need what the marketers are selling. Those people are the ones who will benefit the most by not being called, since for them it's not just a matter of being disturbed but also of spending lots of money on unnecessary stuff. It's precisely th

      • Moderators: Please mod the parent of this up. I'm tired of seeing the same old argument on Slashdot that the Do Not Call List is good for telemarketers, which is clearly not true

    • Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are

      not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this.

      While that's the common sense case, it fails to account for the fundamentally irrational behavior of people. People know they should eat healthy, but they eat junk food anyway (mmmm, junk food). They know they should exersize, but they put it off. And they know that they shouldn't trust random strangers who interrupt them to with telemarketing offers

  • 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 th
  • What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

    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?

    • Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:21PM (#7089285) Homepage
      What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them.

      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.

    • What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

      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

    • What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

      The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

      What they are worried about are the people that, 99% of the time, are too polite to say "ring off," and end up buying whatever pap the telemarketer is selling. If they are unable to reach these people, profits

    • The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

      1% would be a pretty good return rate.

      Also, the telemarketers believe that the return rate on numbers on the Do Not Call list will be higher than 1%. Many people logically know that buying stuff from a telemarketer is a bad idea, but when confronted with a high pressure salemen start reacting emotionally and may make a bad decision.

      Basically telemarketers are seeking permission to con

  • OK, give me a break. How hard is it, really, to enforce this? How many freaking people does it really take to:

    - receive a complaint
    - Verify the call with the telco
    - write them up and get it in front of a judge.

    It's a pretty cut and dry matter if you ask me. It won't take long for the agencies to get hit so bad that they'll just plain quit.

    Hey, I'm all for privacy and such, but commercial places -can- be monitored. Why not just round up all the outgoing calls made from the commercial call center and c
  • The judge who held up the enforcement of the Do Not Call list may be happy that the FCC gave him an out.
    His phone number is on the list! [yahoo.com]

    That, and there's all those phone calls he's been getting from consumers who wanted to show what tehy could with the "rights" he was upholding.

  • How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jason.hall ( 640247 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:12PM (#7089200)
    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?
    • 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.

  • Your chance to help your fellow neighbor... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To add a number to the do-not-call-list(TM), you enter the number in a web site. You then give the web site your e-mail address, and respond to a delivered e-mail address to confirm you want the number added. ANY e-mail address works. So, if you want to be DoublePlusGood today, you could:

    1) Write a bot that adds one number at a time to the DNC list, starting with 000-000-0000 and ending in 999-999-9999.

    2) Autoresponder bot at e-mail address will respond to DNC email, confirming you want the number on

  • .. the TelCo's should have been able to step up and do a long time ago. In the same way as I choose not to have my number listed in a directory I should also be able to choose for it not to be able to telemarketeers, pet stores and any girls that I've met in clubs. (or whatever matrix of people I choose to keep my number private from).

    The choice to use their service should be mine, I would be happy to pay for such a service *if* the TelCo could enforce it.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • George Bush signed this bill into law, so Slashdot users are torn, between their blind anti-Bush sentiment and their anti-telemarketer sentiment. Hmmm....

    For the record, I'm not a republican. I'm from New York and voted, very happily I might add, for Hillary Clinton. I just find blind partisianship (either side) awful, and abundant here on /.

  • My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:51PM (#7089524)
    What the (IMHO idiotic) Denver Judge fails to understand is that my personal telephone is not a public forum. As such, it is not subject to any First Amendment considerations. (Also IMHO airports aren't public forums either, although the court has disagreed.)

    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.

  • I suspect that the telemarketers are here to stay as the only ban that will meet the equal protection standard is the LIST APPLIES TO ALL CALLERS - commercial, noncomercial or even private.

    Freedom of speech is another issue all togather. What good is free speech if no one can hear you?

  • Judges' phone numbers (Score:2, Informative)

    by daemonc ( 145175 )
    Here are the office phone numbers for the two state judges that ruled against the Do Not Call list:

    Lee R West - (405) 348-0818, Edmond, OK 73003
    The 'Honorable' Lee R. West
    Senior United States District Judge
    Western District of Oklahoma
    U.S. Courthouse
    200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
    Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
    Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
    Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

    and the more recent one:

    Judge Edward W. Nottingham
    Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14
    (303) 8

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close