posted
Silly. Bush wrote the law so consumers would believe he was for them, then he told the telemarketers his buddy on the OK bench will strike it down, so he looks good to the Telemarketers.
The Consumers vote for him helped by the money the telemarketers put into his campaign, and he succeeds in conquering the world.
That's a conspiracy hat.
The article doesn't say by what grounds is this law deemed bad. Does it stop the telemarketers right to free speech? The constitution says you have a right to speak, but it does not say I have to listen.
posted
My guess would be that the telemarketers' lawyers "circuit shopped" to find a conservative Federal circuit they could win in at least preliminarily. Or they may have even pulled strings to get this particular judge. Much smoother than outright bribery of a Federal judge, though with the same net effect. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does say, actually. They're not claiming that the no-call list itself is illegal -- merely that the FCC has overstepped its authority by establishing the list.
posted
As long as they don't make a law that says we can't tell telemarketers to piss off, then hang up, I don't really mind. Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aye, it's kind of fun mouthing off to the telemarketers. Or make them listen to a crying baby. Or a barking dog. Or their own commercial on the TV.
See, us JW's have been ahead of our time. We've had do-not-call (or knock on door) lists since before I was born, and it was our idea. Yup.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to blend the two. Talk to the telemarketers about the gospel. I once had a lovely conversation with a telemarketer about the church after I found out he was from chicago - he had seen the temple there.
First time one ever hung up on me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just another example of a sad truth: fake people (corporations) have more rights in this country than actual people (individuals) do.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm pissed off at telemarketers and spam, too, but I have a sneaking feeling that we won't be stopping them soon.
Our friends at the USPS say that a first class letter would cost about $3 if it weren't for Third Class snail-mail spam supporting their business.
The Do Not Call list allows for companies with an established business relationship to telemarket you as often as they want. That means ATT, with whom I have wireless phone service, can telemarket me all day with a pitch for long distance. The LA Times delivers papers to me on Saturday and Sunday, and they can and do telemarket me daily to upgrade to daily paper delivery.
Sprint can not telemarket me to change to their long distance, and the Daily Breeze can not telemarket me to subscribe to their paper. From what I read, the Do Not Call list will be struck down as restraint of trade on this basis.
By agreement, not law (yet) spammers must put (ADV) in their subject line. If all spammers actually did this, any email client could sort these to a different folder, or delete them automatically. If this simple tag was made law, and violators would be faced with a significant fine for each violation, consumers would have a choice to read spam or not. Same thing with telemarketers, except we all need cheap or free Caller ID to take care of this simply.
I think spam faxes should be attacked also, since they use our phone lines, paper, and toner without our consent.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
