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!

NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. get@blah.com

    get@blah.com Guest

    Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
    a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
    the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
    realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
    like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
    without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
    some more.

    The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
    abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
    means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
    making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
    employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
    the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
    their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
    they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
    not just ours.

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:07:16 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

    >Todd Allcock wrote:
    >
    >> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bkt983$see@library1.airnews.net>...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
    >>>grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
    >>>order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
    >>>of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
    >>>telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
    >>>as if anybody really cares.

    >>
    >>
    >> This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
    >> gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
    >> the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
    >> FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
    >> FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
    >> to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
    >> the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
    >> created.
    >>
    >> Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
    >>
    >> ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
    >> organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
    >> with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
    >> of us during dinner. ;-)

    >
    >Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
    >answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
    >better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
    >to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.
    >
    >>
    >> Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
    >> no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
    >> right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
    >> without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
    >> given their lists to the FTC.)



    › See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
  2. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    Unfortunately, for those of us with cellphones already, that's not feasible.
    It cost us money for incoming calls, and for those of us that have gone
    wireless already, or work 3-11, (both those end up costing money to the
    person GETTING the call), where's OUR rights?


    <get@blah.com> wrote in message
    news:snh8nv0t413c4au3g8k7qcep2ojf242ikd@4ax.com...
    > Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
    > a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
    > the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
    > realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
    > like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
    > without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
    > some more.
    >
    > The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
    > abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
    > means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
    > making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
    > employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
    > the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
    > their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
    > they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
    > not just ours.
    >
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:07:16 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
    >
    > >Todd Allcock wrote:
    > >
    > >> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message

    news:<bkt983$see@library1.airnews.net>...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
    > >>>grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
    > >>>order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
    > >>>of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
    > >>>telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
    > >>>as if anybody really cares.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
    > >> gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
    > >> the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
    > >> FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
    > >> FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
    > >> to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
    > >> the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
    > >> created.
    > >>
    > >> Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
    > >>
    > >> ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
    > >> organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
    > >> with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
    > >> of us during dinner. ;-)

    > >
    > >Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
    > >answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
    > >better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
    > >to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
    > >> no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
    > >> right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
    > >> without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
    > >> given their lists to the FTC.)

    >
  3. Jer

    Jer Guest

    get@blah.com wrote:
    > Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
    > a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
    > the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
    > realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
    > like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
    > without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
    > some more.
    >
    > The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
    > abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
    > means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
    > making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
    > employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
    > the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
    > their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
    > they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
    > not just ours.



    Sounds to me you've got way too much idle time on your hands. I
    don't. I'm busy doing things 24x7, eight days a week. I don't have
    time, nor am I likely to be in the mood to listen to some dork pitch
    something that I either already have or don't want. Besides, the more
    time I spend on a crummy phone call, the less time my paid-for phone
    line isn't available for the purpose I got it for.

    You're welcome to screw with their heads all you want, but for myself,
    if I don't recognise the number, or if I just don't want to talk on
    the phone, voice mail works just fine for me. As for them, I couldn't
    care less what they want nor why they want it. Apparently, they have
    some nefarious constitutional right to speak, but that can't possibly
    include any constitutional obligation for me to listen. And the
    reason it can't is because I'm not going to let it. Yes, I put my
    phone numbers on the DNC list just because I could, not that I ever
    expected anyone to give a shit. I apologise if I've offended any
    telemarketers around here - it's not personal, but whether you're
    employed or not isn't something I honestly care about. We're all
    known by the company we keep, so do the math. Get over it and get on
    with your life as best you can - I certainly am.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  4. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
    >mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
    >commercial enterprises.


    Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
    from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
    can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
    from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
    speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
    a lot easier. Assuming you answered a call with the CID blocked. I
    don't unless I'm expecting the call.
  5. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Al Klein wrote:

    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> posted in
    > alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >
    >>Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
    >>mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
    >>commercial enterprises.

    >
    >
    > Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
    > from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
    > can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
    > from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
    > speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
    > a lot easier. Assuming you answered a call with the CID blocked. I
    > don't unless I'm expecting the call.


    Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
    to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
    commercial enterprises. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
    not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
    a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
    with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
    with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
    as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
    money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
    marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
    my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
    that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
    some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
    So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
    phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.

    If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
    better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
    twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
    without prior explicit authorisation.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  6. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    news:bl33ec$nbp@library2.airnews.net...
    > Al Klein wrote:
    >
    > Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
    > to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
    > commercial enterprises. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
    > not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
    > a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
    > with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
    > with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
    > as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
    > money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
    > marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
    > my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
    > that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
    > some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
    > So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
    > phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.
    >
    > If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
    > better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
    > twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
    > without prior explicit authorisation.
    >


    open your eyes, if you have cable tv, then the marketeers have already
    influenced you... why are you driving that particular car? why do you like
    attractive women? what makes them attractive?

    do you have a job? do wonder why? yes... business wants your money so you
    can get paid...
    marketing and advertising is a main part of business. without it, you will
    be left with only a corner neighborhood shop.

    how did you choose all your services from cell phone to label on your
    clothes? advertising and marketing...
    you are living in a consumer world. don't forget that.
  7. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> wrote in message
    news:nuhdb.24773$ai7.7009@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    > news:bl33ec$nbp@library2.airnews.net...
    > > Al Klein wrote:
    > >
    > > Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
    > > to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
    > > commercial enterprises.


    Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
    speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
    the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
    For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
    advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
    of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
    during prime time?
    Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
    Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
    home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
    restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
    transmissions?
    If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
    cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.
  8. get@blah.com

    get@blah.com Guest

    Who said anything about listening?

    Besides, I'll spend a couple of minutes screwing with their heads if
    in the long run it means I get fewer calls.

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:24:56 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

    >get@blah.com wrote:
    >> Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
    >> a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
    >> the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
    >> realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
    >> like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
    >> without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
    >> some more.
    >>
    >> The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
    >> abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
    >> means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
    >> making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
    >> employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
    >> the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
    >> their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
    >> they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
    >> not just ours.

    >
    >
    >Sounds to me you've got way too much idle time on your hands. I
    >don't. I'm busy doing things 24x7, eight days a week. I don't have
    >time, nor am I likely to be in the mood to listen to some dork pitch
    >something that I either already have or don't want. Besides, the more
    >time I spend on a crummy phone call, the less time my paid-for phone
    >line isn't available for the purpose I got it for.
    >
    >You're welcome to screw with their heads all you want, but for myself,
    >if I don't recognise the number, or if I just don't want to talk on
    >the phone, voice mail works just fine for me. As for them, I couldn't
    >care less what they want nor why they want it. Apparently, they have
    >some nefarious constitutional right to speak, but that can't possibly
    >include any constitutional obligation for me to listen. And the
    >reason it can't is because I'm not going to let it. Yes, I put my
    >phone numbers on the DNC list just because I could, not that I ever
    >expected anyone to give a shit. I apologise if I've offended any
    >telemarketers around here - it's not personal, but whether you're
    >employed or not isn't something I honestly care about. We're all
    >known by the company we keep, so do the math. Get over it and get on
    >with your life as best you can - I certainly am.
  9. get@blah.com

    get@blah.com Guest

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:17:39 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> posted in
    >alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
    >>mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
    >>commercial enterprises.

    >
    >Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
    >from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
    >can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
    >from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
    >speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
    >a lot easier.


    .... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
    the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
    yours on the counter and walking away. Make it unprofitable for them.
    If enough people do it, the karma thing will kick in and someone doing
    this will keep them from calling you once in a while.
  10. Phill.

    Phill. Guest

    In article <abccnvokhalfpua55tacj6rqb4ka2n3036@4ax.com>, get@blah.com
    wrote:

    > ... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
    > the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
    > yours on the counter and walking away.


    I also put down by a clock radio I turn on, so it can activate any Voice
    Activated questioning if illegal pre-recorded calls.

    Once I answered a pre recorded message saying I was Baron Von Hindenburg.

    10 minutes later, a live telemarketer called asking for the Baron.
    I apologized, said he had died the week before after a Blimp accident.
  11. Jer

    Jer Guest

    127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    > news:bl33ec$nbp@library2.airnews.net...
    >
    >>Al Klein wrote:
    >>
    >>Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
    >>to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
    >>commercial enterprises. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
    >>not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
    >>a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
    >>with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
    >>with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
    >>as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
    >>money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
    >>marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
    >>my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
    >>that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
    >>some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
    >>So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
    >>phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.
    >>
    >>If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
    >>better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
    >>twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
    >>without prior explicit authorisation.
    >>

    >
    >
    > open your eyes, if you have cable tv, then the marketeers have already
    > influenced you... why are you driving that particular car? why do you like
    > attractive women? what makes them attractive?
    >
    > do you have a job? do wonder why? yes... business wants your money so you
    > can get paid...
    > marketing and advertising is a main part of business. without it, you will
    > be left with only a corner neighborhood shop.
    >
    > how did you choose all your services from cell phone to label on your
    > clothes? advertising and marketing...
    > you are living in a consumer world. don't forget that.



    I don't forget we live in a consumer world, but I make my own choices
    through my own research. I don't need commercial adverts to inform me
    of my options. I have two functional synapses, one for each side, and
    neither cares one whit about commercial adverts.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  12. Jer

    Jer Guest

    get@blah.com wrote:

    > Who said anything about listening?
    >
    > Besides, I'll spend a couple of minutes screwing with their heads if
    > in the long run it means I get fewer calls.




    Okay, you screw with their heads while I ignore the ringing phone and
    screw with someone else. We all have our priorities.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  13. >Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
    >speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
    >the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
    >For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
    >advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    >movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
    >of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
    >during prime time?
    >Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
    >Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
    >home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
    >restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
    >transmissions?
    >If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
    >cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.


    In fact, according to court rulings starting with the Supreme Court one
    regarding commercial "soft money" contributions to political parties being
    free speech, there is essentially NO legal difference between commercial and
    private free speech. None. The current ruling on the "do not call list" (since
    upheld by a second judge, and no doubt to be upheld by every other court
    before which it will come) is just another example of this concept.

    Congress is going to have to find some other way around implementing this sort
    of list because short of a miracle, it's dead in the water legally. Although I
    registered all my numbers on the list, I never could imagine it going into
    service as it's structured now.

    It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
    television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed VOLUNTARILY by
    the stations themselves.

    The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types of
    ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise in
    exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air), not
    because of any legal restrictions whatsoever. If CBS decided tomorrow to carry
    ads for the next big Nazi Party rally, or the film "Julie Sucks Off A Party Of
    Seven", there is nothing anyone could legally do about it. Nothing.

    The thing about free speech is, it also applies to speech you don't like.
  14. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    <dougdingle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:0tndnvcu4j1vcl4ncpoti8efjpkkc2cld0@4ax.com...

    > The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    > movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types

    of
    > ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise in
    > exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air), not
    > because of any legal restrictions whatsoever. If CBS decided tomorrow to

    carry
    > ads for the next big Nazi Party rally, or the film "Julie Sucks Off A

    Party Of
    > Seven", there is nothing anyone could legally do about it. Nothing.


    http://www.uchsc.edu/sm/cihl/history_of_cigarette_smoke.htm

    tv cigarette advertising was banned in 1971

    there are still 1-900-sex-call ads on late nite tv.
    x-rated movie ads (girls gone wild) sponsors the howard stern show on E.

    i'm not sure about the difference btw hard and soft liquor ads are but beer
    commercials are a standard.

    i'm sure holocaust victims will file law suits against CBS if they allow
    those advertisements.
    you can see "Julie Sucks Off A Party Of Seven" ads on the Spice Network
  15. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:20:52 -0700, <dougdingle@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    > It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
    > television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed
    > VOLUNTARILY by
    > the stations themselves.
    >
    > The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    > movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types
    > of
    > ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise
    > in
    > exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air),
    > not
    > because of any legal restrictions whatsoever.


    If you wish to contribute to this thread and not look like an idiot, as
    you currently
    do, please check your facts before doing so.

    Anti-smoking ads air regularly.

    The fact is, that the Federal Government has for a long time restricted
    free speech,
    both by compelling speech and by restricting it:

    "Since 1966, the US Surgeon General's health warnings have been required
    on all
    cigarette packages and, since 1987, on all smokeless tobacco products.
    Congress
    banned television and radio cigarette advertising on TV and radio in 1971
    and
    smokeless tobacco advertising in 1987."
    -
    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp

    I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research actual US Code
    cites.

    --
    Mark
  16. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Mark Allread wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:20:52 -0700, <dougdingle@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
    >> television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed
    >> VOLUNTARILY by
    >> the stations themselves.
    >>
    >> The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    >> movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those
    >> types of
    >> ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to
    >> advertise in
    >> exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air),
    >> not
    >> because of any legal restrictions whatsoever.

    >
    >
    > If you wish to contribute to this thread and not look like an idiot, as
    > you currently
    > do, please check your facts before doing so.
    >
    > Anti-smoking ads air regularly.
    >
    > The fact is, that the Federal Government has for a long time restricted
    > free speech,
    > both by compelling speech and by restricting it:
    >
    > "Since 1966, the US Surgeon General's health warnings have been required
    > on all
    > cigarette packages and, since 1987, on all smokeless tobacco products.
    > Congress
    > banned television and radio cigarette advertising on TV and radio in
    > 1971 and
    > smokeless tobacco advertising in 1987."
    > -
    > http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp
    >
    >
    > I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research actual US Code
    > cites.
    >


    And while they're researching relevant cites, I'll sit here watching
    all the hopes and aspirations of free speech advocates across the land
    fly right out the window. Compelling someone to not do something by
    threatening to yank his/her permit is the same thing as compelling a
    jurist to vote a certain way by threatening to yank his/her chain.
    But then again, I'm no judge nor politician, and neither do I accept
    bribes, er... soft money contributions.

    And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
    yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
    business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  17. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    news:bl73n0$7kc@library2.airnews.net...
    > Mark Allread wrote:
    >
    > And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
    > yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
    > business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.


    i thought they already done that awhile ago because of the tobacco ad bans
    on tv. PM kept it's trademark red and white colors without the marlboro
    name so it can still be seen on tv motorsports.

    > jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    > "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    > what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
    >
  18. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:36:28 GMT, 127.0.0.1 <unavailable@spam-me.not>
    wrote:

    >
    > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
    > news:bl73n0$7kc@library2.airnews.net...
    >> Mark Allread wrote:
    >>
    >> And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
    >> yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
    >> business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.


    Please learn how to properly trim responses. The above is NOT from me.

    --
    Mark
  19. Jer

    Jer Guest


    > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message


    >>And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
    >>yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
    >>business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.

    >
    >
    > i thought they already done that awhile ago because of the tobacco ad bans
    > on tv. PM kept it's trademark red and white colors without the marlboro
    > name so it can still be seen on tv motorsports.


    Yes, the National Association of Attorneys General pressured tobacco
    companies under their own settlement rule interpretation. PM had a
    number of logo contracts in a variety of motor sports venues, yet they
    ceased their sponsorship under NAAG pressure without actual court
    action. RJ Reynolds (Winston) and Player's Ltd. (Canadian firm owned
    by PM) was also caught up in the fray, and made similar decisions.

    Clearly, this free speech issue with commercial companies doesn't
    always travel under full sails the way some would like to believe.
    When politicians play fast and loose with the rules, the freedom wind
    often turns south.


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  20. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:55:57 GMT, get@blah.com posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:17:39 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:


    >>speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
    >>a lot easier.


    >... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
    >the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
    >yours on the counter and walking away. Make it unprofitable for them.
    >If enough people do it, the karma thing will kick in and someone doing
    >this will keep them from calling you once in a while.


    Good point.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?