1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Exercise your free speech rights!

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Mark Allread, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    William Bray wrote:

    > Somehow I have the feeling that their lawyers are involved with the
    > ACLU.


    I don't think the ACLU is *that* stupid. They're big on free speech,
    but I think even they understand that freedom of speech comes with the
    condition that it's generally limited to open venues, and in situations
    where people can choose not to listen to your speech. In other words,
    it's the marketer's right to free speech to pass out flyers on a public
    sidewalk. It's not free speech for them to break into your home and do
    the same thing.

    The question is, whether the courts equate the telephone network as a
    public venue, or whether they see *your* particular phone, which rings
    in YOUR house, as an extension of the privacy of your home.



    › See More: Exercise your free speech rights!
  2. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:


    > I think they are challenging the constitutionality of maintaining a Do
    > Not Call list, but not applying it to everyone. There are categories
    > of callers who are exempt from the list, like charities, pollsters,
    > survey takers, and political campaigns. On this, I can see their
    > point. That why I say, the DNC list should apply to EVERYONE. But,
    > you won't find Congress rushing to pass *that* law, as it would cut
    > into their fund raising efforts.


    Well, to appease everyone, they could probably administer a do not call
    list that gives people the option of opting out of calls from BOTH
    commercial and non-profit/political/public entities, or be able to
    choose between one or the other. That way, telemerkaters can't really
    argue that they're being excluded because both calls are being
    regulated, and people have the option to exclude the non profit calls
    while receiving the telemarketing calls (though in reality, I don't know
    why anyone would want that).
  3. Joe Kaffe

    Joe Kaffe Guest

    "Mark Allread" <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:prv24xmfxbsorsk@news.chartermi.com...
    > Give Judge Edward W. Nottingham a call. He believes that unsolicited phone
    > calls, even those of a commercial nature, are protected speech.

    ---snip---snip---snip---

    I detest unsolicited phone calls and do eveything in my power to discourage
    them, including adding my numbers to the nascent "Do Not Call" list being
    managed by the FTC.

    Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling. If
    you haven't had the opportunity to read the text of the ruling, here's a
    pointer to it.

    http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf
  4. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Joe Kaffe" <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:X%Xcb.4877$gi2.1096@fed1read01...
    >
    > "Mark Allread" <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote in message
    > news:eek:prv24xmfxbsorsk@news.chartermi.com...
    > > Give Judge Edward W. Nottingham a call. He believes that unsolicited

    phone
    > > calls, even those of a commercial nature, are protected speech.

    > ---snip---snip---snip---
    >
    > I detest unsolicited phone calls and do eveything in my power to

    discourage
    > them, including adding my numbers to the nascent "Do Not Call" list being
    > managed by the FTC.
    >
    > Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling. If
    > you haven't had the opportunity to read the text of the ruling, here's a
    > pointer to it.
    >
    > http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf



    there are many ways to avoid telemarketers, why not just lobby a law to
    limit calls to just business hours. or leave it to individual states to
    enact their own DNC. or provide commercial call screening centers. why allow
    the government more authority to limit rights, even if those rights are not
    aimed at the consumers but towards businesses.

    we are already forced to wear seatbelts.
    why isn't there a Do Not Send Me Unsolicited Junk-Mail List? (rhetorical,
    please don't respond)

    i assume the majority of phone customers aren't capable of screening
    telemarketers and want federal intervention to make up for their own
    laziness. i enjoy humilating telemarketers. DNC will end my fun. (DNC will
    eventually end commercial telemarketing in the US). i guess offshore
    telemarketing firms will be exempt from DNC?

    answering machines work really great for those dinner time callers.
    programable phones would also be great. having the ringer mute automatically
    at the dining area during specific times and allowing the answering machine
    to take over with a specific message notifying the caller that "it is dinner
    time and all messages will be recorder please call back later"

    there are many options to avoid telemarketers, it's up to you to decide how
    lazy you are.
    oh, btw, it's another reason to only give out your cell phone number and
    keep your home number unlisted (or not even have a home line)
  5. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Joe Kaffe" <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:X%Xcb.4877$gi2.1096@fed1read01...
    >
    > "Mark Allread" <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote in message
    > news:eek:prv24xmfxbsorsk@news.chartermi.com...
    > > Give Judge Edward W. Nottingham a call. He believes that unsolicited

    phone
    > > calls, even those of a commercial nature, are protected speech.

    > ---snip---snip---snip---
    >
    > I detest unsolicited phone calls and do eveything in my power to

    discourage
    > them, including adding my numbers to the nascent "Do Not Call" list being
    > managed by the FTC.
    >
    > Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling. If
    > you haven't had the opportunity to read the text of the ruling, here's a
    > pointer to it.
    >
    > http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf
    >
    >


    So what's your point other than you have a soft spot in your heart (or head)
    for telemarketers? According to that text it's illegal since 1991 for
    telemarketers to call cell phones, yet since I went wireless, my cell phone
    rings every evening like crazy, and with the upcoming number portability
    thing I can see even MORE telemarketings calls to cell phones. I'm sorry you
    feel the way you do, but I get REALLY REALLY po'd when I have to pay for
    cell time for a telemarketer to call me. The judges ruling was TOTALLY off
    point for telemarketers calling cell phones and the call receiver having to
    pay for it, I don't see anything in there that talks about the right not to
    waste my own money because telemarketers are doing something illegal/absurd.
    Maybe we should have a national call and annoy people list and put you on
    it? got a phone number?
  6. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote in message
    news:HaZcb.14541$ai7.5703@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Joe Kaffe" <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:X%Xcb.4877$gi2.1096@fed1read01...
    > >
    > > "Mark Allread" <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote in message
    > > news:eek:prv24xmfxbsorsk@news.chartermi.com...
    > > > Give Judge Edward W. Nottingham a call. He believes that unsolicited

    > phone
    > > > calls, even those of a commercial nature, are protected speech.

    > > ---snip---snip---snip---
    > >
    > > I detest unsolicited phone calls and do eveything in my power to

    > discourage
    > > them, including adding my numbers to the nascent "Do Not Call" list

    being
    > > managed by the FTC.
    > >
    > > Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling.

    If
    > > you haven't had the opportunity to read the text of the ruling, here's a
    > > pointer to it.
    > >
    > > http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/ftc/mmsftc92503opn.pdf

    >
    >
    > there are many ways to avoid telemarketers, why not just lobby a law to
    > limit calls to just business hours. or leave it to individual states to
    > enact their own DNC. or provide commercial call screening centers. why

    allow
    > the government more authority to limit rights, even if those rights are

    not
    > aimed at the consumers but towards businesses.
    >
    > we are already forced to wear seatbelts.
    > why isn't there a Do Not Send Me Unsolicited Junk-Mail List? (rhetorical,
    > please don't respond)
    >
    > i assume the majority of phone customers aren't capable of screening
    > telemarketers and want federal intervention to make up for their own
    > laziness. i enjoy humilating telemarketers. DNC will end my fun. (DNC will
    > eventually end commercial telemarketing in the US). i guess offshore
    > telemarketing firms will be exempt from DNC?
    >
    > answering machines work really great for those dinner time callers.
    > programable phones would also be great. having the ringer mute

    automatically
    > at the dining area during specific times and allowing the answering

    machine
    > to take over with a specific message notifying the caller that "it is

    dinner
    > time and all messages will be recorder please call back later"
    >
    > there are many options to avoid telemarketers, it's up to you to decide

    how
    > lazy you are.
    > oh, btw, it's another reason to only give out your cell phone number and
    > keep your home number unlisted (or not even have a home line)
    >
    >


    So what's your cell phone number sleazebag? (you must have one since you
    are on a verizon newsgroup). I am wireless and get about 6 to 12
    telemarketing calls to me on my cellphone every night (even though it's been
    illegal to call cellphones since 1991), and have to pay for the incoming
    calls! Wonder what's going to happen when number portability becomes a
    reality I'd be more than happy to forward those calls to your cellphone and
    see if you change your mind!
    Are you claiming that I have no right to not receive calls that I have to
    pay for?
  7. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:25:45 -0700, Joe Kaffe <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling.


    You are severely mistaken. Free speech does NOT give anyone the right to
    utilize the private phone lines which people pay for. If telemarketers wish
    to stand on a soap box in the park, they have a right to free speech.

    --
    Mark
  8. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:25:45 -0700, Joe Kaffe <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

    aged by the FTC.
    >
    > Unfortunately, I must say the judge is right on target with his ruling.


    I should also point out that there are even more nebulous distinctions
    already
    codifed and accepted as law. One example is the prohibition of liquor and
    cigarette advertising on TV, an example of where forms of commercial
    speech are treated differently. By Nutty Nottingham's logic, that too is
    a rights violation. The law already recogizes that there are different
    protections for political vs. commerical speech.

    In the case at hand, there is a list which people who pay for telephony
    resources are able to use to indicate that they are unwilling to accept
    (and consequently pay for) commercial speech. It is obvious, and a matter
    long decided, that free speech does not require anyone to actually listen
    to the speaker.


    --
    Mark
  9. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:45:43 GMT, 127.0.0.1 <unavailable@spam-me.not>
    wrote:

    why
    > allow
    > the government more authority to limit rights, even if those rights are
    > not
    > aimed at the consumers but towards businesses.


    You're confused. The "list" is a means of allowing telephone users to
    protect
    their own rights to be free of unwanted speech.



    --
    Mark
  10. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:21:17 -0400, Isaiah Beard
    <scaredpoet@scaredpoet.n.o.s.p.a.m.com> wrote:

    > William Bray wrote:


    > The question is, whether the courts equate the telephone network as a
    > public venue, or whether they see *your* particular phone, which rings
    > in YOUR house, as an extension of the privacy of your home.


    Aha! Someone who understands the issue clearly.

    It is already illegal (in most states, AFAIK) for telemarketers to
    "blind dial," they are only allowed to call listed numbers. The
    reasoning is a directory listing is somewhat of a public invitation.
    The "list" is merely a means of providing a graduated distinction
    to users - "unsolicited calls are not invited from commercial entities."



    --
    Mark
  11. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:53:23 -0400, Louise <louise2002@nyc.rr.com>
    wrote:

    >>

    >How about forwarding our spam onto him? Would this mean we
    >are doing something illegal?
    >
    >Louise


    Remember he is above the law, and very protected by it. Doing what
    you suggest will probably result in visits by Federal law enforcement
    agencies like FBI, Secret Service....a senior official, you know.



    Larry W4CSC

    3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?
  12. Larry -

    Do you speak of experience with such things? I just had to ask.

    nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote in article
    <3f74ab42.205714864@news.knology.net>:
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:53:23 -0400, Louise <louise2002@nyc.rr.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >>

    > >How about forwarding our spam onto him? Would this mean we
    > >are doing something illegal?
    > >
    > >Louise

    >
    > Remember he is above the law, and very protected by it. Doing what
    > you suggest will probably result in visits by Federal law enforcement
    > agencies like FBI, Secret Service....a senior official, you know.
    >
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > 3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
    > gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
    > conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  13. The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:20:45 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    > <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 03:38:15 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    >>><scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>William Bray wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Somehow I have the feeling that their lawyers are involved with the
    >>>>>ACLU. The next thing we know Hate groups will be making calls on the
    >>>>>same bases. Anti-harassment laws that apply to phone calls will also
    >>>>>come under fire as an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of
    >>>>>speech.
    >>>>
    >>>>True, but freedom of speech only gives the right to say whatever you
    >>>>want. It does not give the right to make someone listen to it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Or to utilize the facilities paid for by others to do it.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I'm still trying to figure out the unconstitutionality of this list. I
    >>can, by law, tell a telemarketer to remove me from their phone list and
    >>they have to comply. By getting on this list, I am exercising my right
    >>on a more global basis. The government is not telling them to leave me
    >>alone- I am. And I join the list knowing that I am only asking
    >>telemarketers (and not the charities and politicians and pollsters) to
    >>leave me alone. What law or consitutional amendment tells me that I
    >>can't make this decision? Or does the judicial system think that I am
    >>too stupid to make an informed decision?
    >>
    >>I'm also finding this humorous because the ruling was made by a Colorado
    >>judge- a state that has had its own do-not-call list for over a year.
    >>Yet, this list is allowed to exist untouched by the courts.

    >
    >
    > I think they are challenging the constitutionality of maintaining a Do
    > Not Call list, but not applying it to everyone. There are categories
    > of callers who are exempt from the list, like charities, pollsters,
    > survey takers, and political campaigns. On this, I can see their
    > point. That why I say, the DNC list should apply to EVERYONE. But,
    > you won't find Congress rushing to pass *that* law, as it would cut
    > into their fund raising efforts.
    >


    But if the government is not making the choice for the consumer, then
    all they are doing is providing a repository for the information.
    Besides, I'm not convinced that the right to free speech, as given by
    the Constitution, extends to Corporate America. If that were the case,
    they could make outlandish claims about goods and services, and hide
    behingd the 1st Amendment when they are called on it.
  14. Isaiah Beard wrote:
    > William Bray wrote:
    >
    >> Somehow I have the feeling that their lawyers are involved with the
    >> ACLU.

    >
    >
    > I don't think the ACLU is *that* stupid. They're big on free speech,
    > but I think even they understand that freedom of speech comes with the
    > condition that it's generally limited to open venues, and in situations
    > where people can choose not to listen to your speech. In other words,
    > it's the marketer's right to free speech to pass out flyers on a public
    > sidewalk. It's not free speech for them to break into your home and do
    > the same thing.
    >
    > The question is, whether the courts equate the telephone network as a
    > public venue, or whether they see *your* particular phone, which rings
    > in YOUR house, as an extension of the privacy of your home.
    >
    >

    One of the other threads about this subject brought up the ban on
    calling cell phones. Part of the reasoning behind this ban (if I
    remember correctly) was the cost incurred by the phone owner for the
    incoming call. Well, if I pay for landline service, while the call will
    not show up as a seperate charge on my bill, I am still paying to have
    the phone, and as a result, should be able to dictate its proper use (in
    my eye).
  15. Larry W4CSC <nospam@home.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:53:23 -0400, Louise <louise2002@nyc.rr.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>

    >>How about forwarding our spam onto him? Would this mean we
    >>are doing something illegal?
    >>
    >>Louise

    >
    > Remember he is above the law


    No, he's not. Some judges act like they're above the law, though.

    I agree with Larry, however, that pissing off a judge will do more harm
    than good. Ask me about a traffic ticket that I got once, that I was suppoed
    to go to court for... Forgot the court date, called the court thinking it was
    no big deal. "Sorry, we can't find your citation."

    "'Scuse me? That means I don't have to come to court, right?"

    "Of course you still have to come to court."

    "So what's my court date?"

    "I'm not quite sure right now."

    I ended up getting rather pissed off at whoever it was in the clerk's office
    that I talked to. Boy, did the judge come down hard on me when I went before
    him. He was *bellowing...* I couldn't get a word in edgewise.

    Funny thing is, he had this reputation for being an asshole, but I sat in
    court and saw people doing all sorts of stupid stuff that, if they had a
    little common sense, they wouldn't have pissed him off. He seems to have
    no problem with people who don't argue with him, or (in my case) yell at
    his employees. And I actually got to meet him outside the courtroom, and
    when he's not dispensing justice, he's quite a nice guy to talk to... we
    got to talking about his grandkids.... :>


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  16. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bl1r9g$7e1l3$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > So what's your cell phone number sleazebag? (you must have one since you
    > are on a verizon newsgroup).


    yes i do have one. but the first thing you learn to avoid telemarketers is
    not to blindly give out your number.

    > I am wireless and get about 6 to 12
    > telemarketing calls to me on my cellphone every night (even though it's

    been
    > illegal to call cellphones since 1991)


    and you never told them it was a cell phone number? did you know that if you
    tell the telemarketer to add your number to the DNC list that he does flag
    your number? there is already a state run DNC, why do we need a federal?
    according to the state run DNC, if that company calls again, you are
    intitled to monetary damages.. the federal DNC doesn't have that.

    > and have to pay for the incoming
    > calls!


    get digital services, don't pick up caller id blocked numbers. get free
    nights and weekends, it's worth it.

    >Wonder what's going to happen when number portability becomes a
    > reality I'd be more than happy to forward those calls to your cellphone

    and
    > see if you change your mind!


    i know how to deal with telemarketers, you need to get off your lazy arse
    and do some research.

    > Are you claiming that I have no right to not receive calls that I have to
    > pay for?


    heh, my claim is: why do you want the federal government involved in
    limiting the public's rights no matter what they are.
    federal censorship is not a good thing. the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    was enacted to protect intellectual property, look at the consequences...
  17. 127.0.0.1 wrote:

    >
    > heh, my claim is: why do you want the federal government involved in
    > limiting the public's rights no matter what they are.
    > federal censorship is not a good thing. the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    > was enacted to protect intellectual property, look at the consequences...
    >
    >


    No censorship involved here- only a clearinghouse list. Nobody is told
    to go on the list, and nobody is told to stay off the list. The right
    to free speech (which, by the way, does not mention business entities)
    does not come with the right to an audience. And until you or anybody
    else is willing to pay for the ability of my phone to ring, I will
    dictate how that phone is used, to the best of my ability. If I choose
    to use caller ID, answer the phone, not answer the phone or use it as a
    recipe holder, so be it. I have the legal right to have telemarketers
    remove me from their calling lists. If that can be done by having my
    name entered on a single list, that works for me.

    So, answer a few questions. How does this list represent federal
    censorship? And how does it limit the public's rights?
  18. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote in message
    news:9v6db.17685$ai7.9391@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bl1r9g$7e1l3$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > >
    > > So what's your cell phone number sleazebag? (you must have one since

    you
    > > are on a verizon newsgroup).

    >
    > yes i do have one. but the first thing you learn to avoid telemarketers is
    > not to blindly give out your number.
    >
    > > I am wireless and get about 6 to 12
    > > telemarketing calls to me on my cellphone every night (even though it's

    > been
    > > illegal to call cellphones since 1991)

    >
    > and you never told them it was a cell phone number? did you know that if

    you
    > tell the telemarketer to add your number to the DNC list that he does flag
    > your number? there is already a state run DNC, why do we need a federal?
    > according to the state run DNC, if that company calls again, you are
    > intitled to monetary damages.. the federal DNC doesn't have that.
    >


    One thing at a time. There are 50 states and only 20 of them have do not
    call lists, and anyone calling from one state to another can totally ignore
    the DNC in another state. Guess where most call come from? HA! you guessed
    it, OUT OF STATE!

    They are not subject to the persons state DNC etc.

    Do people from other states have to respect cell phones by state laws? NO NO
    NO NO they do NOT!!!!!
  19. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote in message
    news:9v6db.17685$ai7.9391@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bl1r9g$7e1l3$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > >
    > > So what's your cell phone number sleazebag? (you must have one since

    you
    > > are on a verizon newsgroup).

    >


    > get digital services, don't pick up caller id blocked numbers. get free
    > nights and weekends, it's worth it.
    >


    Caller ID usually doesn't work on out of state calls, so there's no way to
    see where the sleazebags are calling from.
  20. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote in message
    news:9v6db.17685$ai7.9391@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bl1r9g$7e1l3$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > >
    >> i know how to deal with telemarketers, you need to get off your lazy arse

    > and do some research.
    >


    Sorry, you are such a jerk, I'm friggen paralyzed from the neck down
    (hopefully only temporary while my back heals), and am upright in a metal
    frame to keep my spine straight. my lazy "arse" is about 3 feet off the
    ground.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?