Hello

Many if not all of you are probably familiar with the National Do Not Call List. You may also be aware of the two federal judges who recently put a stop to it going into effect on October 1st as planned.

However you may not know of Robert Wientzen, he is the CEO of the Direct Marketing Association and the main person behind the lawsuits putting a stop to the list. Here's a link to a recent CNN.com interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...zen/index.html

He makes three whole points in the interview see if you can find them all :roll:

My personal favorite is the supposed 18 year old do not call list that already exsists. How many times have you told a telemarketer to never call again and gotten another call the same day? Personally I'd like to see a copy of Mr. Wientzen's list.

It should be interesting to see what congress does in the next couple of days.

~Atticus05

Heh...

I just realized this may be a slightly political post, hope I didn't offend anyone. If so I appologize, let me know (send me a priveate message) and I'll remove it.

~Atticus05

I realy do not understand the debate, they claim it voilates the second amendment on free speach, but if you ask someone to stop following you or phoning you they have too, its called harassment.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

My limited understanding of free speech, is that if I choose to I can go out and tell the world that I think that the lunar landings were faked--(I know we landed on the moon--just using an example of a lie), or I can say that I think that President Bush is a "doo-doo head" (trying to find a silly insult), or I can say that I think that God is a woman who lives in the tiger cage at the San Diego Zoo. These are examples of free speech.

From what I remember from History, the founding fathers were trying to give us free speech on religion, and politics (amongst other things), somehow I doubt that they wanted to include people harrasing you.

__________________
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.

--Niels Bohr, Danish Physicist.

Well 1 problem. There is only one admendment on free speech nad it is the 1st admendment.

Now about the argument, it is crap. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular political views, literature, movies, (and now video games according to the courts) and other forms of intelligent communication of ideas. Calling during dinner to sell me x,y,or z is Harassment not speech. The problem is a government agency made a law that was not passed by congress. The FTC cannot make laws and that is what they did. Now congress is racing to pass a law so the FTC can enforce the registry.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...g_030926142313

Hopefully this will be sorted out quickly.

__________________
Light is faster than sound. "That's why some people appear bright until they speak"

WWGD (What Would GLP Do)

Inspected by #13

Congress passed a bill yesterday giving the FTC authority, and President Bush said he will sign it. However, Another judge has put a hold on the list, this time on a First Amendment basis.

The argument is that the law is unconstitutional because it does not apply to charities, poll takers, or politicians.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Frankly anyone who calls me who I have not given my number to is violating my privacy. I don't see how the first amendment can protect someone in that case.

Personally, it's a non-issue.

If I don't feel like going to the phone when it rings I let the answering machine grab it and check later.

If I do pick up and someone is selling me something I just say No Thank You and hang up.

If I am in the extremely rare foul mood when the call comes I might suggest a variant mating ritual and then hang up.

This seems a false issue, allowing politicos to posture and fume about not much, really. Much more importent stuff to think about.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

Maybe they could rename the list. Call it "The list of people who don't want their personal property used for advertising without their permission". This would include disallowing advertisers from spray painting ads on your house and car, sending ads to your computer, and using your phone to deliver their messages. Then freedom of speech would not be involved. They can talk all they want. They just can't use your personal possessions without your permission.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Chuck

that is possibly the most brilliant idea I've heard all day. Can I hug you?

Here, Here, Mike Alexander!! =D> =D> =D>

Consider the mechanics. No one is knocking on your door to harass you, rather a company owns a phone system and by right, they determine the rules.

Ideally, and--with local de-monopolization--a practicality, each company could set its own rules.

The problem is, many rules don't take into account changes. For example, rules about "obscene language" don't take into account definitions of obscentity by space or time, or if such is consenting as in phone s*x.

Generally, the idea is to be liberal with the rules--or lose to those who are--Bell found this out the hard way with competitors; unless something grevious occurs.

As for this list, again, it belongs less in the courts and more in the corporo-quasi-courts. Let the company keep lists, abjudicate complaints, and, if they decide it necessary, bar users; and if the users don't like it, they can use another service.


As for me, I take my time in answering calls and ignore them when I feel like it--technology was made for our benefit, not the other way around. I use call screening; and when some annoying telemarketer/surveyer calls (on a phone with neither screening nor answering machine), I simply ask them to "hold on a minute," set the phone aside, and go back to what I was doing for a few 10's of minutes. (If you hang up on them, they simply immediately go to another to annoy; and if you swear at them--well, the employee has your number). 8) 8)

I like telemarketers. I can make fun of them, I can harass them back, I can do fun things with them (see here ), and I can rant and rave at them all I want and they can't do anything about it. I see them as a free way to vent steam after an aggravating day.

But, if they call when I'm in the middle of dinner, I'll be rather peeved. So, yes, the Do Not Call list is a good idea, but I think that by law telemarketers should not be allowed to call after the hour of 5:00 pm anyways so that they can't call you at dinner time unless you are eating an early dinner.

I still think that people should have fun with their telemarketers. If one calls, I just say either, "No," and hang up, or I treat them really weird and have fun with them. If more people did that, those telemarketers would drop like flies because of how they treat potential customers after a long day of being harassed.

__________________
h00!

Another way to deal with it is to tax them out of existence. Put a large tax per call on unsolicited sales calls. Then their constitutional rights wouldn't be violated. They can call all they want. There's legal precdence for taxing away rights. The second amendment says we can have guns but they're heavily taxed. That's clearly an attempt by the government to reduce the number of armed civilians. Why can't the tax abuse be used in our favor for once?

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Sorry Chuck,

As much as I feel that the right to overthrow tyrannies--domestic and foreign, and aquiring/maintaining the ability to do such, is important, the Second Amendment has two problems that allows wiggle room for the legislators.

First, it's poorly written. The so-called left/liberal would tell the NRA guy, "We aren't infringing on the Second Amendment. You want an armed militia? You got it. It's the National Guard." The NRA guy would counter that it refers to individuals.

"Well, let's stop the water flow into the reactor. After all, the professor said 'You can't put too much water in the reactor.' "

"No, no. What he meant is that you can't put too much water in the reactor implying that it's impossible. What he meant is that you don't have to worry about flooding it--and that the danger lies in too little water."

"No it doesn't, he meant turn off the water in situations like these."

"No, he meant the exact opposite!"

Later at a beach.

Waitress: "My, look in the distance. It looks like a mushroom cloud."

Professor sipping a magarita before leaving: "It is. You know you just can't look at those mushroom clouds for too long." :P

Second, speech is speech. Arms are real. Few Americans favor confiscation of hunting rifles. More would agree to confiscating handguns. Still more assault rifles. More still would with bazookas. Very few would defend the right for individuals to own nuclear bombs.

Hence wiggle room for legislators.

I agree, there's lots of wiggle room. It would be nice to see them wiggle around the first amendment by taxing telephone solicitors.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Two or three points worth mentioning:

1. I'm not sure this is a free speech issue, since I pay a monthly bill for phone service. Therefore, I'm being forced to pay to be bothered by telemarketers. Where's the free part?
2. I usually just say, "I'm not interested. Don't call here again." Then I immediately hang up. I'm unwilling to waste any more time on it.
3. What happens to all the telemarketers' employees when they shut down? It's not like there are lots of jobs out there right now.

As for point 3, here is my thoughts... How do telemarketing comapnies make money? It must have to do something with actually selling something, so they should love the do not call list. It makes their job easier. Now, they don't have to call people who will not buy things. Anyone left must want to buy something.

And, if they do have to fire people, that sucks, but businesses shouldn't be protected because they may have to fire people. If that was the case, I could start a retail organization, and if no one bought my stuff, I could whine that if the governement didn't give me money or subsidies or something, I would have to fire people. It is the nature of business to stay competative or fold.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

I don't think that their need for jobs gives them the right to annoy me every day. Right now it's a minor annoyance, especially since I use dialup and stay online most of the evening. There are usually one to three such calls on my answering machine when I get home from work, but after that my line is busy.

Maybe if they started calling more often and called around the clock, and your friends couldn't call you because your line is always busy, you'd feel differently about it. Is it all right to annoy people as long as they don't do it constantly? Where do you draw the line? I think it should be drawn at zero calls unless I agree to receive them.

The same applies to spammers, but I've started using Mailblocks for my email which has eliminated the spam problem.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of telemarketing by any stretch of the imagination. I just find it interesting that all those congressmen are jumping on the wagon so fast to pass this law, and no one is talking about how the jobs lost might be replaced.
Did anyone see the guy on CNN yesterday who went to some telemarketer convention in a big city (Washington D.C?) and started calling all the conventioneers in their hotel rooms at 3:00 a.m? Seems he got tired of being called by telemarketers during the day while he was sleeping after working the night shift. He recorded some of the calls and it was pretty funny.

My general feeling is screw the telemarketers they annoy me bottom line. I hate big government so I normally don't support new legislation on principle but I want these people of my back and i am tired of having ot do the leg work to do it.

As for this discussion about the 2nd admendment that has popped up, well I pay my fees, I carry my gun permits, and I worked for the government. I have jumped through all of the governments hoops (carry permit, background check, and registration) to own my guns and I am responsible so leave my freaking guns alone. Has anyone ever tried to LEGALLY purchase an assault rifle? Do you know the paper work, the background checks, the fees(over $200), and the 90 day waiting period plus the cost of the legal gun(easily over $1200). It's nuts!! Noone legally buys an assault rifle and then goes on a killing spree, it takes to long. People who want to ban assault rifles or handguns have never tried to legally purchase one.

__________________
Light is faster than sound. "That's why some people appear bright until they speak"

WWGD (What Would GLP Do)

Inspected by #13