'Do not call' list blocked by court

CNN Money ^ | September 24, 2003 | Reuters

[Labyrinthos]

No, but I can guess what it is, a lengthy recitation of the authority of the FTC, a quick look at freedom of speech for commercial entities (telemarketers claim a First Amendment right to call), and some conclusory statements about irreparable harm (the standard for grant of a temporary restraining order).

I bet you a cyber dollar that the court's decision has nothing to do with free speech or the right to privacy, but rather the power of an executive agency to regulate beyond the scope of the authority that congress delegated.

[RightWhale]

We ought to question anything Federal. Question a Federal list of those who don't want telemarketers calling, question a Federal list of firearm purchasers, question a Federal ID card. Maybe this list is a good thing, but we are granting the Feds yet another power. Day by day, drop by drop the power grows.

[Martin Tell]

has nothing to do with free speech

You're on. I agree that FTC authority will be key, but the court is required to discuss the palintiffs' claim and likelihood of success, and in this case that centers on free speech.

BTW, the FTC has broad authority. For example it oversees the right of debtors to mandate what sort of contact creditors have with debtors. Debtors are given the right to stop creditors from calling them (sound familiar?)

For what it's worth, I predict the FTC will be upheld and these rules allowed to stand. Even judges read polls and are bothered by telemarketers.

[Hildy]

ENOUGH..ENOUGH...These things should be decided BEFORE action is taken place. I am so sick of the courts coming in AFTER THE FACT and changing the will of the people. I AM MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

[El Gato]

The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City

does not make law for the rest of the country. It will be appealed and overturned. Unless a telemarketeer restricted themselves to calling within a single state, they are operating in the epitomy of Interstate Commerce, and are subject to federal regulation. States have their own "no call" lists/laws, at least Texas does.

[El Gato]

And be sure to tape several sheets together in a loop to create a hundred sheets on their end.

Many modems come with FAX software, you could send a whole potfull of pages with no need for duct tape, nor even any real paper on your end.

[Iron Eagle]

You are so right. Let's actually read the damn decision first.

[xtargeter]

I called and the woman that answered sounded like she was in tears. I explained politely that I was upset with the ruling and she said they had been getting calls all morning and that some of the courthouse workers had received calls at home. Some of the calls had not been "very nice." She said that was going too far. I responded that I get numerous calls all day long, and that since I worked nights, I didn't appreciate getting them during the day when I was sleeping. She said she would pass the message on the judge.

Sounds like they didn't anticipate the storm.

xtargeter

[Martin Tell]

I bet you a cyber dollar that the court's decision has nothing to do with free speech

You lose.

Opinion is posted at http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf

See page 11 for first mention of alleged violation of First Amendment rights.

[doodad]

Modem? What's a modem? j/k

[ought-six]

The way to deal with this is to tell the telemarketers that you will boycott the company, organization, or product they are pushing unless and until they stop the harassing phone calls. This is unbelievable. The courts created out of whole cloth a constitutional right to kill one's children on the basis of a previously unknown and non-existent privacy right, but then turn around and say the American people have no privacy rights that can protect them against a harassing intrusion via telephone solicitation. Our courts have become unaccountable, unconstitutional, illegal, and imperial. It's time to bring out the ropes and the torches.

[Martin Tell]

Decision, by US District Judge Lee R. West, was granting a motion for summary judgment by palintiffs US Security, et al. (Not a TRO as I guessed). Judge held that Congress had granted authority to establish the do not call list to the FCC, not the FTC, therefore the FTC could not establish and maintain the list. The FTC argued that a later resolution of Congress recognized that the FTC was in fact taking charge. The Court disagreed. First Amendment agrument noted, but not dispositive.

Sounds like it may be up to the FCC now (assuming the court is not overturned).

[azhenfud]

"Hold onto your horses cowboy.

If the FTC lacks the authority to regulate in this particular area...."

The people gave that authority to the FCC by their signup. The problem is that a judge decides to over-rule the decision of 50 million fellow Americans who have voluntarily chosen to place their names/numbers on the list those bureaucrats have offered. This judge has, in effect, said the will of the people is of no concern to him/her.

I certainly don't need to read every word of the wild-buck opinion to conclude the judge is spurring his own horse. ;-)

[steve-b]

A federal judge in Oklahoma City ruled that the Federal Trade Commission didn't have authority to implement a popular do-not-call list shielding consumers from telemarketing calls

Er, didn't Congress pass, and President Bush sign, a law expressly granting such authority??

At most, the court could reasonably find that intrastate calls are not subject to federal authority, but I don't see how they can throw out the DNC list altogether.

[AppyPappy]

Nope. Now the telemarketers will sue for the list under the FOIA

[Cboldt]

Ummm ... the telemarketers MUST have the list, in order for it to have been of any use anyway.

[steve-b]

the seperation of powers doctrine in the Constitution prohibits executive agencies such as the FTC from regulating beyond the scope of their authority as delegated by Congress

Again, isn't that "delegation" precisely what was accomplished in the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President a few months ago?

[billbears]

I pay an extra $3 a month to keep those calls from even reaching me.

I pay 1.95 through BellSouth a month. Don't you realize we're in the wrong? We're supposed to be good 'conservatives' and hand over yet another responsibility to the bureaucratic behemoth in Washington DC

[berserker]

This court ruling actually was expected. I didn't even bother to sign up on the list since I knew the reg would be overturned.

[Marysecretary]

This is exactly why I screen my calls. I hate telemarketers calling me before supper, during supper, before breakfast, during breakfast, etc. arrgghhhhhhhhhhh