These two asshats, have just about killed the do not call list, citing fredom of speech and statutory authority. WhatyWHAT? FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Are you serious? This isn’t a governmentally imposed law against speech, it’s a voluntary list, of people who DON’T WANT TO BE BOTHERED BY TELEMARKETERS. How plainly fucking daft must you be to not understand that? Congress gave the FTC the authority, but the Judge in Colorado, who is CLEARLY in the pocket of the industry, made it almost impossible for congress to intervene again. DAMMIT!
I like the list I subscribed to it. It was a list that meant on the days I get to stay home in the evenings like a normal person I wouldn’t hear from some fucking chucklehead who wants to sell me sattelite television or pass on his deep,deep travel discounts. In fact, nearly 51 million people signed on to that list.
Call me an idiot, but how the hell does something like this happen? How does the government force an intrusive business like this down your throat? The insurance industry is bad enough, but at least insurance is a product, unlike the invasive, rude, and sometimes insane and offensive telemarketer. You get nothing from these bottom feeders but high pressure offers to buy things you don’t need with money you probably don’t have.
It would be like the guy from best buy following me home, and waiting patiently in the kitchen for me to finish dinner so we could talk some more about that car stereo.
It’s about time we screwed some sense into these judges, or got them the hell out of office.
The judge striking down the do-not-call list on constitutional grounds is Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the Denver District Court. His office phone number, publicly available from the court’s website, is (303) 844-5018.
I suggest you call his chambers and share with him your constitutionally-protected views. Repeatedly. Preferably right around lunchtime.
Cool, now I can make the 10-15 telemarketers who phone me every day feel like shit without having them bitch that I should just ask to be placed on some pointless list that they never pay any fucking attention to anyway.
FTR, the decision of the first judge is moot, since Congress already overwhelmingly passed a new law authorizing the FTC to impliment the list, in response to the decision. The second case, however, must be settled via appeal, and I’m sure it will be, since the decision is quite possibly the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.
This is a bit of a highjack, but in articles about this mess I have seen it stated several times that there are three million people in America employed as telemarketers. I call bullshit on that. That would mean more then 1 out of 100 people work as a telemarketer. I know it seems like it somestimes when I get several calls a night. But that figure has got to be wrong.
Telemarketers have a constitutional right to call and harrass people with their sales pitches, people who have voluntarily signed on to a list saying they don’t want to hear this shit.
No, Blalron, it’s just that a remarkably stupid federal judge who probably flunked his con-law class thinks they have that right. Fortunately this fucktard is not on the Supreme Court.
My understanding is that the first judge, after Bush signs the new law, will still have to dismiss the suit so it’s not quite moot. As for the second, I’ve been looking for it online but can’t find it. Do you have a link?
In one of the other threads on this topic I called the free speech argument, and while I think it’s wrong I also think it’s funny that Congress, who carved out an exception for themselves so they could continue to call, are now at least temporarily hoist by their own petard. The obvious answer to the First Amendment objection is to allow people to choose what kinds of calls they want to get and what they don’t, including calls from charities and politicians. Of course Congress won’t do that, because they don’t want to choke off their money supply.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated they will rule in support of the do-not-call list, when the appeal reaches them. The list may be delayed briefly, but it is going to happen.
I read both of them. The argument that the FTC does not have statutory authority to implement the list makes some sense to me based on the judge’s interpretations of the applicable laws, though this will be rendered academic when President Bush signs the recent authorization legislation, as he has said he will.
The Colorado decision finds that the FTC rules distinguish between commercial speech and non-commercial speech in a way that is impermissable under *Cincinatti v. Discovery Network, Inc.**, 507 U.S. 410 (1993) because the rules for commercial solicitations were different from those for political and charitable solicitations. I personally don’t agree with the court’s analysis, because it does not consider the the different treatment is properly based on the additional constitutional protection political and charitable speech has over mere commercial speech.
However, disagreement with the legal analysis of a judicial decision is no reason to personally harrass or threaten that person. To do so has potentially grave consequenses for the rule of law in this country.
Just got done reading the Colorado decision. It’s almost too bad in a way that Congress has passed the FTC authorization bill because the two judges ruled exactly opposite on that issue.
In reading the Colorado decision I find myself agreeing with the judge that the FTC over-reached by drawing the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech. He’s saying pretty much exactly what I suggested earlier, that by exempting charitable and political calls from regulation the FTC has screwed the constitutional pooch. I disagree with you Billdo, that the judge didn’t consider the greater protection given non-commercial speech. He goes on at length about it, dicussing the three-prong test for the regulation of commercial speech and explaining where he finds that the FTC regs fail that test. The ruling seems perfectly reasonable on its face, but I will be very interested to see what the appeals court does with it.
Oklahoma didn’t address constitutional questions at all, mentioned them in only one paragraph in fact, which again is too bad because fights between circuits can be fun.
FTR, I never said anything about threats. And calling the court to make one’s feelings known is no more “harassment” than calling the DMA on Dave Barry’s advice.
Indeed, a pillar of our system of government rests on the right of citizens to communicate their displeasure with the acts of government to government officials. That is true for the judicial branch as well as the legislative and executive. There is nothing wrong, and it does nothing to weaken the rule of law, for the citizenry to complain about a judicial decision.
This quote from Fear Itself’s linked story irritates me:
There is a big difference between the do-not-call list and a “no soliciting” sign on the door, and it’s one that the government itself created. A “no soliciting” sign applies with equal force to all solicitors regardless of message. It doesn’t carry with it built-in exemptions for the likes of Billy Tauzin and John Dingell. As much as I like the idea of a do-not-call list, a significant portion of me is now hoping that it will be struck down on First Amendment grounds, with a big bold-letter line in the ruling reading “if Congress had applied it equally to all telemarketing calls, including those made on behalf of members of Congress seeking donations, then the result would have been different.” Then we’d see whether the will of the people would really prevail and Congress would step up and regulate their own machines.
Otto, I only read the decisions quickly. What struck me about the Colorado decision was what I saw as a disconnect between the earlier part of the opinion that discussed the lower constitutional protection given to commercial speech and the later part that found the rules unconstitutional because it treated commercial and non-commercial speech differently. It seems like the court set up a damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation. There could be some available middle ground that I missed in my reading.
Both Oklomaha and Colorado are within the 10th Circuit, so this will be an intra-circuit fight, not an inter-circuit one. I’m intrigued why the telemarketing organizations chose those courts (and the 10th Circuit) to bring their cases.
Billdo admittedly I didn’t read the CO decision microscopically but I thought the judge was saying, yes, commercial speech is less protected than non-commercial but the FTC’s contention that the lower level of scrutiny given commercial speech regulations allowed for the imposition of this level of regulation was wrong.
I asked the question about possible forum shopping over in GQ but nobody could really shed any light.
I sent an email to the DMA telling them essentially that now I no longer feel the need to maintain any sort of politeness when dealing with telemarketers. (I also told them that between them and a boil on my butt, I’d rather have the boil, because you could get rid of that and it wouldn’t sue for the right to remain there.)
BTW, what kind of equipment do I need to record incoming calls?
YOU do NOT have freedom of speech in MY house. If I don’t like what you’re saying, I’ll ask you to leave. If you don’t leave, I’ll throw you out.
This, too, is a constitutionally protected right – my right to private property.
And my telephone is in my house.
The idea that telemarketing firms are demanding the freedom to call people up who have already decided they don’t want to buy anything from them confuses and irritates me. Are they really so damn sure they can sell me something, AFTER I’ve already declared that I don’t want to hear from them? And are there enough people who WOULD buy something, even after getting on a don’t-call-list that it’ll make any kind of difference?
It’s like the spammers, all demanding the right to jam my mailbox with offers for loans and bigger penises, day in and day out. I am NEVER going to do any business with these freaks, so why can’t I have the right to simply NOT have them bug me?
So if I phone the judge at home to try to politely talk to him about how I feel about telemarketers, that’s harassment?
But if a telemarketer phones me, that’s freedom of speech?
So as long as I’m trying to sell something, I can phone the judge every minute?