Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List

Fox News ^ | http://www.foxnews.com/

[Hotdog]

War of the laws?...whats next?

[not-an-ostrich]

If Congress CAN say courts have no jurisdiction on DNC bill can they do the same with abortion?

[neutrino]

What's next? Giving the death penalty to annoying idiots that can't dial the correct number and call you by accident (usually twice because most idiots can't bear to think they dialed the wrong number). How about a public thrashing for a prank call that calls at "dinner time".

While I sense that you aren't entirely serious with your fine proposal, I do believe it has considerable merit!

And what exactly is "dinner time"? Do you now want the federal government to define that?

Hmm. Good point. Let's just ban this nonsense 24/7 and be done with it.

But you guys are correct, let's ban all forms of annoying advertising...get it out of our mailboxes, e-mails, pop-ups, telephones, billboards, magazines, newspapers, tv stations, radio programs, those blue road signs on the interstates (I'm so annoyed when Shell is on both the "Gas" and "Food" signs), high school annuals, sports programs you buy at the event, signs at concerts, blah, blah, blah.

Sign me up! If e-mail spammers could get the death penalty, I would gladly pull the switch to terminate their miserable existence. Heck, I'd pay for the privilege!

[m1-lightning]

While I sense that you aren't entirely serious with your fine proposal, I do believe it has considerable merit!

hee hee

[elfman2]

"Walking down the street is also not in the privacy of my own home which is specifically under protection of the Fourth Amendment"

The Forth Amendment is irrelevant to telemarkerters. It protects your privacy from government, not businesses or citizens.

[elfman2]

"Except when you turn CNN off, it stays off."

Same with telemarkerters. If you tell them to take you off their list, I think the law is that they have to wait 3 months to call you back. I somehow manage to see or hear of a little bit of CNN way more than once every 3 months. They don't listen at all to my demand that they stop bothering me.

[massadvj]

It's not that I don't appreciate your inconvenience. It's that freedom comes with a price tag. Our whole society has been lulled into a sense of entitlement by politicians who disregard the Constitution and administer group therapy in the form of some new "protection" from our inclinations toward insecurity. The Do Not Call List is symptomatic of it, as is Medicare prescription drugs, ad infinitum.

[OldFriend]

We have to pay to get an unlisted telephone number.

[elfman2]

oops, redirecting...

[Texas Federalist]

"Is just me or was the First Amendment protection only intended for political speech?"

Political speech receives the greatest protection under the "interpretation" that the Supreme Court now gives the amendment. However commercial speech also receives protection. The basis of the decision here, from what I understand, is that the bill exempts charities and long distance telephone companies.

[m1-lightning]

Our whole society has been lulled into a sense of entitlement by politicians who disregard the Constitution and administer group therapy in the form of some new "protection" from our inclinations toward insecurity.

Our society has relied on the government to regulate commerce because if they didn't then we would all be at the mercy of the tyrranical demands of commerce. If you have a problem with the government doing the job it was intended for then you have a whole different issue to discuss than this one.

[Baseballguy]

You can get an option from a phone company to have a service "Selective Call Acceptance".

This allows you to make a list of numbers that are allowed to call you. My local company charges $4.00 a month. Maybe we could get gov to provide this service for free?

[not_apathetic_anymore]

We'll clearly never agree. Others have adeuately addressed the freedom of speech issue to my satisfaction.

• Commerce can be regulated
• Freedoms are already regulated, I currently can't awaken others at 3am raising a ruckus without consequence.
• I'm not telling they can't talk to those who wish to get their calls - just please don't call me. I have to actively make that request. Since it's not the default postion I see telemarketers as being as protected.
• I PAY each month to have an unlisted number. In the old pre automatic dialer days, that did a reasonable job of keeping me from being disturbed by an unwanted ringing phone. Telemarketers no longer respect that.

Having my sleep interrupted,and not being well rested is not just my inconvenience. Think about whether or not it's a good idea that medical personnel who work night shifts (or pilots, police, etc) can't get uninterrupted sleep before they start their job. I'd prefer that those with whom I place my safety are well rested.

[csvset]

My phone service was out for several days due to the hurricane. My first incoming call once service was restored? Telemarketers! Bastards.

They screwed my name up; so I told them that they had the wrong number as no one by that name lived here.

[m1-lightning]

The basis of the decision here, from what I understand, is that the bill exempts charities and long distance telephone companies.

Exactly. This was never a free speech case to begin with but some freepers here seem to think it is. No one's free speech is being taken away. The debate here should be: Should political candidates, boy scouts, National Right to Life organization, MADD, Trooper's lodge, ect. be considered commerce?
"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce..."

[LibFreeUSA]

- "Congress does though have the authority to restrict the courts.

God forbid. I hope not!

I'm sure you wouldn't be shouting this when the Dems had total control of Congress.

[LibFreeUSA]

- "He ruled it was an unconstitutional infringement of the telemarketers free speech. It is unclear at this point whether the judge attended law school.

I don't know about many of you here, but your 'ideology' seems to be getting in the way of a 'higher principle' here, Freedom of Speech!

Quit trashing the courts, when a ruling is being based on protecting Freedom of Speech. Take time to really consider the implications of the issue and the arguements involved, and what is at stake here.

Sure, I hate telemarketers. But, I'm am not willing to sacrifice any undue encroachment on the 1st Amendment for the sake of NOT RECEIVING a telemarketer's call.

[m1-lightning]

God forbid. I hope not!

the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Article III Section 2

I'm sure you wouldn't be shouting this when the Dems had total control of Congress.

It's not my fault they are dumb. They could have prevented all appeals to Roe vs. Wade if they knew better. Too late now.

[FreeReign]

Same with telemarkerters. If you tell them to take you off their list, I think the law is that they have to wait 3 months to call you back. I somehow manage to see or hear of a little bit of CNN way more than once every 3 months. They don't listen at all to my demand that they stop bothering me.

Both CNN and the telemarketer don't have the right of free speech on my private property or the absolute right of free speech on public property.

With CNN, I can tell the cable company not to send me their transmission. With the telemarketer, I can now put my name on a list that says don't call me.

It is the freedom of association and 55 million people choose not to recieve telemarketer calls.

Ultimately, when phone transmission is done entirely by cell and nolonger on public land, the filtering of the telemarketers will be accomplished in the private sector and will be driven by the choices of the consumer in the private sector.

That's not the case now.

[m1-lightning]

I don't know about many of you here, but your 'ideology' seems to be getting in the way of a 'higher principle' here, Freedom of Speech!

Dou you understand why free speech is even an issue here? The judge ruled that it would not violate free speech if all charities were included in the legislature as well. He thinks it's unfair to selectively ban free speech, but it's ok if everyone's free speech is banned. That's where we question this guy's judgement. Charities can or cannot be considered commerce depending on the situtation. In which it isn't considered commerce, it would not be constuitutional to regulate it.

I'm am not willing to sacrifice any undue encroachment on the 1st Amendment for the sake of NOT RECEIVING a telemarketer's call.

Would you be willing if it were libel, slander, obscenity, copyright and trademark laws, classified information, perjury, homosexual slurs, racial comments, or harrassing phone calls? All of these are currently existing exemptions to free speech.

[m1-lightning]

Good Morning! Back at it again? =)
Libertarians are hard to get through to. They want all the rights with no restrictions even if it causes conflict between rights.