But if it is unconstitutional, can it be made constitutional?
Yes, it just takes a different process to make it Constitutional.
I don’t want the list that bad.
But, perhaps two thirds of the nations voters do. That makes it quite possible to make it constitutional.
However, passing an opt in law is not different, if there is a legal punishment involved.
Our legislators will not, repeat will not make it illegal to poll, and raise elections loot.
Not no way, not no how. They won’t even let the suggestion be made.
They will vociferously defend the charities. But, hey, they won’t go to the mat over them. Political calls? More important than the Constitution itself, to the average Congresscritter.
Tris
The simple fact is: If morons would stop buying crap from phone solicitors, they would stop calling us at dinner. We don’t need better laws, we need a more intelligent populace. The fight against ignorance continues.
Yes. As I mentioned before, commercial speech is subject to a lower legal standard than non-commercial speech. I suspect that is why the FTC exempted non-commercial concerns from the DNC list; it would be even harder to defend against a First Amendment argument if they’re dealing with non-commercial speech. Political speech is highly protected by legal precedent. For example, I can say “George W. Bush is a lying scumbag”, and he would have a pretty hard time winning a lawsuit against me. But were I to sell you a pill and claim that taking the pill will increase your I.Q. by 50 points, you would have a very strong false-advertising claim against me. That’s because the former example is political speech, which is highly protected, whereas the latter is commercial speech, which is not as highly protected.
There really shouldn’t be a problem with having more restrictions on commercial speech than non-commercial speech. Commercial speech isn’t being prohibited - they can still call those who aren’t on the list, and they can still send mail and advertise in the media.
If they were to use your idea, it would get rid of the “unequal treatment” objection, but at the same time it might open a whole new can of worms.
But I think the point is that it’s a tad easier to get a law enacted than to bring the intelligence level of the entire populalace up to the necessary level. And then there’s that tricky little issue that some people actualy do want to buy the stuff.
Wasn’t there an uproar about junk mail a few decades ago?
Now there is talk about banning Spam…I believe California just made it illegal?
I think the crux of all this is that people want to feel their home is their castle, and they want a virtual moat.
I don’t want any phone calls, emails, junk mail or knocks on the door from anyone I do not know, or have not invited. Simple as that.
Advertisers have magazines, newspapers, television, radio, billboards, flyers, bumper stickers…you name it. They have ample means to make themselves noticed, and if I am interested, I can reach then…just leave me alone in personal contact. Period.
The door to door bans were enacted by a government entity, in the case that was specifically taken to the SCOTUS, it was a town that said no door to door anywhere within our community. Government was not just controlling the commercial activity/speech of the salespeople, it was making a blanket choice for its residents, and if they didn’t mind solicitations at their doorstep, oh well.
The National DNC list was essentially offering the same protections to consumers’ phones that the SCOTUS said was okay for their homes – putting up a “No Soliciting” sign with a law behind it which provided enforcement against violators. Because of the virtual nature of the phone network, the sign was “hung” on a list that was maintained by a government agency, and had a law behind it which provided enforcement against violators, but it was still the choice of the individual consumer.
Two interesting soundbytes heard on the “constitutionality” argument:
Sen. Chuck Schumer on Fox & Friends, Friday morning:
“It’s like saying that if someone comes to your door and wants to show you pornography, you have to let them.”
Random caller on talk radio;
“Freedom of speech is meant to protect the free flow of ideas and information, not the free ability of someone to sell me some chemicals for my yard.”
Ha, ha. I think that’s how a lot of people feel about it. Legal arguments aside, it just seems somehow to defy common sense as to what “free speech” really is. I think most people would agree that one should have the right to voice one’s opinion even if it is unpopular - even if we disagree with the content. But with a sales pitch, there really is no content to speak of, other than “buy this thing”. Like the caller says, there is no exchange of ideas being squelched, because “buy this” is not really an idea.
Right on,** Blowero **and Teaelle. This is a simple matter of semantics.
Telemarketing is free speech?
Are you preventing the legal transfer of information by not paying for a phone connection so that the rest of the country can engage you in free speech?
As well, must you own a TV? A radio? Must you buy a newspaper?
Why do phone companies charge an additional fee if you perfer an unpublished number?
Why was it that until resently most public controlled telephone companies were complicit in 1-900 toll-call scams by collecting money for telemarketing solicitators who charged up to $100 per minute under the threat of cutting phone connections if no one payed the exorbitant rates?
Did the Public Telephone Companies ever re-pay the illegal money that they collected from the young and the ignorant of our republic? What crooks!
Where were the federal judges when the Telephone Companies were caught participating in this con-game ? Do federal judges get their telephone numbers unlisted for free?
Yes, we should all call the judge in Denver at all hours to voice our opinion, but then the good judge could sue thousands of us for harassment. You know, kinda like we wish we could if we had a judiciary with more than bump on the head for brains.
What a joke.
The only part that I think is ethically wrong about this particular “do not call list” is that it didn’t go far enough. The politicians seen to it that they and non-profit organizations were exempt from it. If they were on this list too, I think the latest judge wouldn’t have claimed discrimination and it would be going through on schedule. Any fat chance the politicians will revise it so that they will be included?
Yes, if the politicians can’t fix the problem, then our phone companies should. Your answer is good as long as the consumer could get it for “at or near cost” and not yet another device the consumers will have to pay through the nose for to get that service. I have a feeling the phone companies will give us an option to pay for that service at X amount of additional dollars more per month like the rest of the mile long options they give us which end up costing us more than our regular phone line. This is something any decent phone company should gladly provide for their customers for free. I know of at least one local phone company that does block telemarketers and it’s provided at no additional charge for all of their customers. So if the telephone companies are going to generate billions of dollars of more profits from this, then I’d prefer the politicians to fix it.
This whole “free speech” bit that marketers is claiming is ridiculous. They are advertising on private lines that we pay for. I’ve never bought anything from a telemarketer: not once, yet I have gotten as many as ten a day! It’s an industry which generates some 662 billion dollars a year in the United States. Who are you people? And what did you buy? Fess up!
JZ
In the spirit of Dave Barry:
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.
Now that’s just rude.
I am not personally capable of judging whether there truly is a legal obstacle to the list or not. But I doubt that this judge is stopping the list from going forward because he’s being pressed by the public to do so; quite the opposite.
If it’s not currently legal for the list to exist, and we want it, we should recognize that fact and change the law. Pressuring a judge to just ignore the law because it leads to an outcome we don’t like is dishonest and IMO disgusting.
Rude? Maybe. But it illustrates the practical flaw in extending this degree of first amendment protections to telemarketing.
In fact, flooding the judge’s office with telephone calls would have greater constitutional protection, because it would be political speech, not commercial speech.
I think Judge Nottingham needs a practical demonstration of the logical result of his opinion. If the constitution protects on free speech grounds randomly calling people who don’t want to be called for sales purposes, then it also protects citizens’ calls to the judge to voice their disagreement with his opinion.
I’m not urging the judge to ignore the law; I’m urging the judge to revisit his interpretation of the law, in this case the first amendment, in light of a real-world illustration of the endpoint of his reasoning.
That’s intellectually dishonest.
I’m not suggesting that people do not have a protected right to call this poor judge and bother him (although harassment charges might be appropriate).
Presumably, the judge did not reach his “interpretation” randomly or by whim. Rejecting the law merely because you don’t like its consequences, and tormenting those who rightfully uphold it, is outright evil.
No, it isn’t. **
Exactly. This would simply be the exercise of one of our constitutionally-protected rights. **
This is no more harassment than it was when Barry suggested people phone the DMA. **
This is not the rejection of a law. It is the illustration of the absurdity of the judge’s misinterpretation of the law by using his own logic against him. If the constitution protects irritating calls to sell me stuff during dinner, it also protects irritating calls to the judge to protest his ruling.
At any rate, I reject the position that says citizens must sit idly by and accept rulings they disagree with, or that only recourse to the ordinary political processes are the appropriate as avenues for their protest. A little creative protest can go a long way, particularly when (as here) it so clearly illustrates the fallacious position one is protesting against.
** Presumably, the judge did not reach his “interpretation” randomly or by whim. **
Maybe not ** TVAA **, neither did he reach it by common sense or logic.
**Rejecting the law merely because you don’t like its consequences, and tormenting those who rightfully uphold it, is outright evil. **
“Tormenting”, TVAA? “Outright evil”? Your affected respect for* His Honorship* THE JUDGE harkens back to the jolly ol’ days of english rule, back when men were men and the peasants were subservient. 
Right, but why should charities be exempt? By setting up the Do Not Call list the way they did, the government is saying “We’re going to set it up so that people are prevented from selling you aluminum siding at dinner, but not so that the Red Cross is prevented from hitting you up for money at dinner”. In both cases, you’re receiving unsolicited calls from strangers who want you to do something (buy siding, donate money). The only difference is the content of the message. That’s the problem with it.
The marketing research companies will be allowed to call as well… I think it is so annoying to have those guys calling you every single day trying to make you complete a survey that is 45 minutes long… I think statistics are very important and everyone likes to take a look at them but I do not get why they do such long questionnaires and besides many of the surveys are also used as advertising strategies… for instance I did one about Borders Books and Music and they kept asking me if I was aware that BBM offered books, cds, dvds, gourmet coffee drinks, etc… I felt like if they were just trying to advertise the store… basically if I didn’t know that they sold those things now I do… and also the companies and the people that work for the companies that do research make a lot of money too so anyway you look at it it is a commercial call…
my advice for you guys is that if you still like to do surveys ask the person on the phone how long it is going to take… remember also that if they tell you 15 minutes it would probably take 30…
well as usual sorry about my poor english… and you all be good !
That’s right. Why are so many people having trouble understanding this?
You might call it a technicality of how the law was crafted and the legislators just have to do a better job.
Of course, if we had a truly competitive phone market, the phone companies would be forced to deal with this issue and it wouldn’t be a government matter to begin with. Just as certain ISPs offer different levels of spam blocking ability (from none to very effective). On my hotmail account I get probably 75 spam messages a day. On my “real” internet account, I get none.
And actually, my phone company offers a call blocking option for about $5/month. I haven’t signed up yet, so I don’t know how effrective it is. For now, Caller ID and Voice Mail, together, do all I really need so that I haven’t answered a telemarketting call in over 3 years. (I’m waiting for the TMs to get smart enough to realize that they are knocking on a door that will never open.:))
Yes, it is.
We don’t like it, therefore there must be a way to prevent it.
** First, how do you know the law was misinterpreted? On what grounds do you reach this judgment?
Perhaps the law is defective, the judge has pointed this out, and now it must be changed. But no, the law can’t possibly say that we can’t do something we want to! There’s no need to re-evaluate and change the law – it MUST PERMIT US TO ACT AS WE PLEASE!
White must always defeat Black. Slavery is Freedom!
Who here has claimed that your right to call the judge is not Constituitionally protected? I didn’t say it was unconstitutional, I said it was wrong. You’re tormenting him for carrying out his duty without being able to show that he was wrong. You dislike what he did, therefore he must have been wrong.
Intellectual dishonesty.
You’re free to protest. But you haven’t demonstrated why the judgment, as opposed to the underlying law, is defective. You haven’t demonstrated that you don’t possess a right to call this man, thus showing that his judgment was invalid. You haven’t shown anything.*
*[sub]Except that you’re not a very nice person, of course.[/sub]