Second Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call list

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 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.

The suit in Nottingham's court was filed in January by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. ``The FTC has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by manipulating consumer choice,'' Nottingham wrote.

Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the ruling ``puts a little damper on the party, but we're still confident of prevailing in the end.'' He said Tauzin's staff was reviewing the Denver decision.

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 Oklahoma City 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.''

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.

Say, wanna start a telemarketing company specializing in selling to district court clerks over the phone? It would be more convenient than residential work since we can call them up during regular business hours. All day long.

I would prefer to try the niche market of calling only the idiot judges that make such idiotic decisions, around 3 AM, at their home. Why ping on poor wage slave clerks?

I guess that I'm the last person in America that is opposed to this stupid law. Who needs a freaking federal law so that the phone doesn't ring at dinner time? And no, I'm not a telemarketer.

If you don't want to answer the phone during dinner, don't.

If you don't want to miss a call, get an answering machine.

If you don't want to talk to a telemarketer (or your brother in law), get Caller ID.

All that said, what passes for judicial wisdom these days is pathetic. Free speech does not include the right to be heard or the wherewithall to make your speech.

This judge along with many others should be impeached.

HECK with the telemarketers. Don't worry about them. They can't call you without a list.

Actually they can and do. Their automated dialers plow through all numbers. If someone answers, the call is transferred to a live person. If you ever picked up, said "hello" and listened to blank air for 2-3 seconds until someone came on, you experienced this technique.

Therefore, if I say hello and get no immediate response, I hang up immediately.

Incidentally, I have a second telephone line so that calls coming in when line 1 is busy kick over to line 2. The number for the second line is unlisted and I haven't given it to anyone. Anytime I see a call coming in on that line, I know with certainty that it's a computerized telephone dialer. Needless to say, I don't even pick up.

I hang up immediately.

You are missing out on one of life's great challenges--trying to get the telemarketer to hang up on you.

Gee, I don't have many friends--will you be my friend?

Are you wearing underwear?

What kind of underwear are you wearing?

Will you sell them to me?

Maybe Congress should look at the NDNCR from a different angle. Instead of classifying the listed homeowners as telephones to avoid, the listed numbers should be considered to be telephones willing to receive calls from telemarketers. By connecting with any listed number, the telemarketers will be invoiced $11,000. That will be the charge payable to the phone owner as his fee for receiving marketing calls.

The government will put together the list so telemarketers will know who is willing to accept their calls for the scale fee of $11,000 per call. If telemarketers call any listed number, they will be deemed to have been fairly warned and fully liable for payment of the fee. At least in this manner, telemarketers retain their first amendment rights to free speech and Congress is exercising its right to regulate interstate commerce.

I was waiting for a call from my husband's friend who was with him at an emergency room, waiting to hear the outcome. The phone rang and it was a telemarketer. I hung up on the telemarketer (I was distraught and waiting to hear about my husband). The phone rang again. I picked it up and the person at the other end hung up on me. Happened another time. I realized the telemarketer was having some fun at my expense because I had hung up on him first. Rang again and I let it ring about 25 times before they hung up and hoped it wasn't my husband's friend at the emergency room.

Telemarketers are scum.

Maybe the reason that I never had a problem with them is that I treat them as human beings who are trying to earn a living. Before I had Caller ID when I got a call I would do one of two things. If I was somewhat interested, I would put them on a short leash -- I'd give them a minute to get my interest. If I wasn't interested, I'd just thank them and tell them politely that I wasn't interested. If I wasn't interested in taking a call, I just wouldn't pick up. Now I run a business from home and I need to take calls, but I use Caller ID to screen. I want to know who is on the line before I pick up.

I understand that you were anxious because of the the ER call that you were waiting for, but a polite 'no thanks' taking 5 seconds would have saved you 5 minutes of grief and anxiety.

I just can't understand the deep hatred that so many people have for telemarketers.

Maybe the reason that I never had a problem with them is that I treat them as human beings who are trying to earn a living.

The biggest problem I see is that I can't just reroute them to your home phone and you can talk nice to them. btw, most are not humans. Most calls I get are from computers and recorded messages. And when it isn't a recorded message but a live person, I can't say how many times I've had a computer disconnect with me because it was dialing multiple numbers at the same time and some other poor bloke answered before I did and the telemarketer disconnected from my phone after I picked up went to THAT phone and left me hanging repeating "hello" into the phone. You are either completely ignorant of telemarketing or you are a telemarketer. I got more news for you.... I used to be a telemarketer. I was a top marketer because I *accepted* that I was a nuisance and never let the hangups get to me because I knew I deserved them. I quit the business after two months and found *real* work that didn't annoy 99.99% of those I came into contact with. I worked for MCI. They even connected me to a senior citizen at a nursing home. Made me ill.

I understand that you were anxious because of the the ER call that you were waiting for, but a polite 'no thanks' taking 5 seconds would have saved you 5 minutes of grief and anxiety.

btw, this is the most incredibly stupid response I have ever seen. I hope no one you care about is ever victimized or at the least, you never learn about it. I suspect with an attitude like yours, there is much that goes on around you that you never hear about.

Wow!

Given your description of telemarketers and your attitude towards me, I think that you belong back in your old job. I replied civilly to your comments and you attack me.

I guess my 'treat every like like a human' policy really doesn't work on everyone.

Then don't buy any services. That is your choice. So I spend ten cents a day to know who is calling me. Big deal. I get 20 to 50 calls a day and I don't always have time to take all the calls and there are calls that I don't want to miss.

To me, that's a better way than to run to the freaking federal government for 'protection'.

My frustration in all of this is the fact that we -- on this supposedly conservative forum -- are running to government to take care of an relatively minor annoyance.

That is what the liberals do. The telemarketers are not raping, robbing, or killing us although to hear some people describe it, that is exactly what is going on. Even those offenses are state, not federal crimes. I can almost understand a state 'do not call' list.

There are market based solutions to handle this. Do we really need FEDERAL intervention?

There are market based solutions to handle this. Do we really need FEDERAL intervention?

Since telemarketing is an interstate industry, it would naturally be under the control of the federal law anyway. Indeed, it is under the jurisdiction of the federal government because the transactions occur via the common carrier phone system.

The argument of market based solutions is the same as saying that if you don't armor plate your home, you're responsible for the theft that occurs. And we are taking a case of theft. People are using a phone service that you pay for and maintain and equiptment that you pay for and maintain. They are using this without permission, which makes it theft. The argument that usually is replied that you pay for the services anyway falls flat - you did not get telephone service with the intention of getting sales calls, you got it for your own personal communication needs.

I'm all for the industry creating a 'do-call-list', and you're welcome to sign up for it. I could even see the industry offering reduced rate telephone services in exchange for the right to call you with sales pitches.

Maybe the reason that I never had a problem with them is that I treat them as human beings who are trying to earn a living.

There's your mistake. It simply would never occur to me to do that, any more than it would occur to me to treat al-Qaeda as human beings who are trying to express a political grievance.

The list isn't as big a piece of information as you'd think. Some telemarketers just sequential dial, no list needed. If we took away their ability to sell lists then the only effect would be to increase the frequency of sequential dialing. Not that the privacy bill isn't a good thing, but it won't touch this problem.

One reason this isn't unreasonable is that the entire mobile phone industry works just FINE without telemarketers.

There are numerous laws on the books against nuisances. As a small-l libertarian, I have no problem with laws against leaving dog poop on the sidewalk. Telemarketing calls are verbal dog poop delivered right to your dinner table. Unless you assiduously ID every caller, and don't find a ringing phone to be an intrusion that ought to come with a good reason behind it, laws against telemarketers are perfectly reasonable.

SGT_SCHULTZE WROTE: "Maybe Congress should look at the NDNCR from a different angle. Instead of classifying the listed homeowners as telephones to avoid, the listed numbers should be considered to be telephones willing to receive calls from telemarketers. By connecting with any listed number, the telemarketers will be invoiced $11,000. That will be the charge payable to the phone owner as his fee for receiving marketing calls."

I LOVE IT!!! I could use a few hundred thousand dollars/month extra:

ONE Call/month/line x $11,000 = $11,000
THIRTY Calls/month/line x $11,000 = $330,000

With THREE PHONE LINES/NUMBERS at home...WOW!!!

I'd be a MILLIONAIRE in a MONTH!!! BRING 'EM ON!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.