I'm a bit surprised by this ruling. 1. Broad leeway has been interpreted as Constitutional in enacting very vague mandates. It isn't really a controversial issue, anymore. (cases can be supplied, if desired...) 2. Commercial speech is protected less than political speech. Political callers were exempted under the rules. 3. People in the public do have a recognized privacy interest in their home (in fact, there's excellent historical argument that the sanctity of the home against intrusion was one of the key concepts behind the Bill of Rights. 4. The nature of the speech isn't purely public. While the comments are being made on one piece of private property, are transmitted over semi-public lines, and arrive at a private residence. Surely, a person should be able to dictate what information arrives at his own home. I have trouble believing that anybody has a constitutional right to torment anybody who owns a telephone. Those are some of the best reasons in favor of the Constitutionality of the no-call list, imo. http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/24/technology/ftc_donotcall/index.htm?cnn=yes
Of course, if there's no punishment for violating this voluntary list they're so proud of, then telemarketers have no reason to take the time and effort to respect it. You know, if Americans signed up 50 MILLION phone numbers for this list, I'd have to think that perhaps the telemarketing companies should look into changing the way they do business because obviously there is a HUGE outcry against the way things are currently run.
i love telemarketers I have 3 ways of dealing with them 1.) the most common thing i do is just hang up on them. They never can pronounce my last name correctly so i'll usually make some smart ass comment about that then hang up. 2.) Listen to them for a minute. Let them get their idea out in the open then hang up on them. 3.) I'll put them on hold. I'll tell them to hold on one second, then i lay the phone down and come back 5 minutes later. If they are still there (rare) then i'll hang up on them. usually they've already done it for me.
Second judge blocks anti-telemarketing list 11:04 PM CDT on Thursday, September 25, 2003 Associated Press WASHINGTON – With remarkable speed and near unanimity, Congress on Thursday passed legislation intended to ensure consumers can block many unwanted telemarketing calls. But whether the service millions of Americans signed up for takes effect next week was thrown into doubt when a second federal court judge ruled the list violates free speech protections. U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver blocked the list late Thursday, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the national registry is unconstitutional and will devastate their industry. His decision came shortly after the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for a bill making clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce the "do-not-call" list. The legislation was prompted by an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma City who said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry. The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement. The list that would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward. Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222. The FTC asked U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West to block the order he issued Tuesday declaring the agency lacked proper authority to oversee the list. He declined Thursday and the FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The FTC had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling, but it also probably will end up with the 10th Circuit. During brief debates, House and Senate members made it clear they want the list. "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., referring to West. "The measure before us makes crystal clear the commission can and should proceed with the do-not-call list." He said the ruling has "served as a rallying cry for the tens of millions of American households who signed up for the registry." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said no one likes "hopping up and down like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear somebody on the phone try to sell you something. It drives you crazy." Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he is confident West's decision will be overturned. "We should probably call the bill 'This Time We Really Mean It Act' to cure any myopia in the judicial branch," he said. The ruling caught lawmakers off guard but they responded with remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours. The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list, which after fewer than four months already has nearly 51 million numbers. "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. Despite the torrent of angry calls Thursday, West rejected the FTC's request to block his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC expects the list to block four of every five telemarketing calls. Exemptions include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians. The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system. Telemarketers say the list would severely harm their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Still, the Direct Marketing Association, one of the groups that challenged the registry, said it has asked its members to obey the wishes of those who are enrolled in the registry. "It is appropriate for marketers to respect the wishes of consumers," said H. Robert Wientzen, the association's president.
So now that a judge has ruled that curtailing phone calls to someone who doesn't want them is a violation of free speech, does this mean that prank calls are also legal? I mean, if I have a free speech right to call someone and bother them when they don't want to be bothered in order to attempt to sell them something, wouldn't that apply to other situations? And what does this say about the junk fax law? Or attempts to fight spam email? Heck, am I curbing free speech when I choose to not answer the phone? Or when I have anonymous call blocking on my telephone? Am I going to get sued by the telemarketing association for infringing their free speech rights by not picking up my phone when the number is listed on the caller ID as "unavailable"?
I just love those idiotic recordings, just got one in fact "The Word of the Day is Freedom" a 3 second pause "That's right, freedom from credit card debt!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these rulings affect the Texas No Call List. If you live in Texas, just sign up for it (it costs less than $3 per year) and you're good to go no matter what happens with the nationwide list.
I would say if the Bill of Rights protects telemarketers from the federal do not call list, the 14th amendment will protect telemarketers from the Texas list. (I have not formulated an opinion if the Bill of Rights protects telemarkers' free speech) I don't think this is a wise course of action for telemarketers. If they win the court battles, there is easily enough support for an constitutional amendment which would force people to sign up for telemarketers.
The CNN story said the new ruling would affect the state lists since the decision was made on Free Speech grounds rather than a technical issue of whether the FCC had jurisdiction. The State of Texas cannot infringe on First Amendment rights, either. However, I don't think a federal judge's ruling in Colorado would immediately affect the Texas list. But I don't know.
I think the telemarketer's claim that it is a "free speech" issue is total cow dung. How is it free speech interrupting me in the middle of dinner or working on one of my cars? To me, putting my name on a no-call list is like putting a No Tresspassing sign on my yard. It's a property rights issue. You don't have a free right to traipse across my property, so why should these vermin have the right to bug me constantly?
People should just get caller ID. If a strange number comes up or "Private number" or the classic "--000---", then don't answer your phone. I have not talked to a telemarketer in close to 2 years because I don't answer my phone when those jackasses call. And funny thing is I haven't had any of those calls within the last 6 months.
It's still a bother, though. You have to get up and look at the caller ID to see that it's an unavailable number or whatnot (and I do get calls that I need to take that show up the same on the caller ID). They never stopped calling me even when I completely stopped answering the telephone. I've already gotten eight potential sales calls today (not all of them leave a message).
Sugarloaf anyone? __________________ Long distance direct'ry assistance area code 212 Say hey A & R this is mister rhythm and blues He said hello and put me on hold To say the least the cat was cold He said don't call us child we'll call you. I said you got my number He said yeah I got it when you walked in the door Don't call us, we'll call you Don't call us, we'll call you. I got your name from a friend of a friend who said he used to work with you Remember the all night creature from stereo ninety two Yeah I said could you relate to our quarter track tape You know the band performs in the nude He said uh huh don't call us child we'll call you. Listen kid you paid for the call You ain't bad but we've heard it all before Yeah it sounds like John, Paul and George Any way we cut a hit and we toured a bit with a song he said he couldn't use. And now he calls and begs and crawls It's telephone deja vu We got percentage points and lousy joints and all the glitter we can use Mama so uh huh don't call us, now we'll call you. Listen kid you paid for the call You ain't bad but I've heard it all before Don't call us, we'll call you.
The thing is, it's not free speech at all. First, they are getting PAID to do it. Which as far as I see it, they aren't expressing their own beliefs or opinions - they are expressing the company's opinions/statements/whatever - If you dont have something original to say, dont bother trying to catch my attention. Which brings me to my next point; they generally have a script to follow. So do actors and even DJ's on the radio, to some extent. They get censored and fined if they cross the line. So if I tell a telemarketer that they are offending me and not to call me back at 9:30 at night when I am in the middle of dinner or homework, who's gonna stand up for my right to not be bothered, short of me filing harassment charges?
I don't see the free speech issue either. They are engaging in commercial activity -- trying to sell a product. The Federal Trade Commission has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce, and should be able to place limits on commercial speech. Just as they can place restrictions on advertising or sales by mail or the internet, they should be able to place restrictions on this. To me, this isn't any different than posting a "No Soliciting" or "No Trespassing Sign." Telemarketers aren't trying to sell to me in a public place, and I didn't call them. They are coming into my home, intruding on my time. I should have the fredom to say no, and have it stick. I'm curious about the jurisdictional issues here. The federal judge wouldn't have jourisdiction over the state list, and they weren't in the lawsuit. This will go to an appeals court, but even if they upheld the ruling, their decision would only be binding in that district. Would the judge's ruling, or the appeals court ruling, affect the enforcement of the list in other jourisdictions -- the rest of the U.S.? Also, did either of the judges actually direct action at the FTC or FCC? Or do they expect the appelate court to rule before the list is scheduled to go into effect?
I realize that these kind of calls are annoying, I get that. I guess I sympathize with the telemarketers because I've done something very similar to that before. Personally, I always preferred it when people just hung up. There's no point in throwing the sales pitch out there if the person is absolutely not interested. Saves all of us time. But don't be rude to someone who calls you. Yeah, they may interrupt you doing something, but you didn't have to answer your phone. Most of these people need the job and are just trying to do what they're supposed to. In fact, I can't even understand how people get so angry at a random phone call anyhow. Most companies, if you tell them that you do not want to be called from again, they're legally obligated to remove you from their list and they won't call you again. I know we had that.
My problem is, that I am Mr. Nice Guy. I know these are just people trying to do their job. I always say, "No thank you, I'm not interested." At that point, the caller goes into their mandated rejection script, often with a stab at guilt. "You don't think it's a good idea to save your family money on long distance," or "Oh, you don't think that our hardworking firefighters deserve our support?" No thank you doesn't work, because they have to follow the script. I shouldn't get the call, and they shouldn't be placed in that situation. In fact, it's not the interruption that bothers me, but the fact that they won't take "no thanks", and pretty much force you to hang up on them. I've tried asking to be removed, but most companies don't follow through. I don't know if they don't have the system in place, or just upload the number from a different list, but it doesn't seem to work. I can't even get Soutwestern Bell to quit calling me about long distance service and DSL -- two products I buy from them! I think it's a good thing to be able to put a "please, no solicitations" sign on my phone, and I should be able to do so. In fact, I would prefer that we have the option to exclude charitable solicitations and political announcements (especially the recordings). The telemarketers should be happy with the removal of phone numbers from people that aren't interested. What they are essentially saying is that they are able to talk people into buying things from them.
