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: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    "Justin" <justinnomorespam@cjteem.com> wrote in message
    news:b37b2a5cc79732eaf6932e8dabf0cbea@news.teranews.com...
    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:3f747698$0$160$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
    > >
    > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:bl1rue$70iv4$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
    > > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you

    cellphone
    > > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for

    incoming
    > > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they

    waste
    > > and
    > > > see if you change your mind!
    > > >

    > >
    > > Tell them it is illegal to spam a cellular phone or a fax machine and if
    > > they call you again they will be fined. Immediately call Verizon and

    have
    > > the minutes creditted back to you with a report of the call. Those

    calls
    > > WILL stop. I have used this method and I know longer receive any calls

    > like
    > > that. When I buy anything, I always list my cell phone number in place

    of
    > > my home phone.
    > >
    > > Tom Veldhouse

    >
    >
    > I just cancelled my land line. Except for the morons who keep calling for
    > Caroline after I've told them that she's no longer the user of this phone
    > number, I don't get near as many on my cell phone. I still get some,
    > however.
    > >

    >
    >


    My favorite was just last week. My cell phone is based in florida, and I was
    on a ship in Alaska going through the inland passage. My cell phone rang, I
    answered it, and it was a telemarfketer for a local business back in FL
    4000+ miles away!



    › See More: NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
  2. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Excuse me Telemarketer lover,


    I think you're overreacting. Stuart was stating facts, not saying he was
    happy that the idiot in Denver made the decision he made.


    --
    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
  3. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:GaidnbNwE7YpPOmiU-KYgw@lmi.net...
    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover,

    >
    > I think you're overreacting. Stuart was stating facts, not saying he was
    > happy that the idiot in Denver made the decision he made.
    >
    >
    > --
    > 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


    Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?

    The part you snipped:
    <paste>
    Ever try and call 911 (a service that we pay for) when a telemarketer has
    the phone line tied up? Ever have your security alarm try and call the
    police or fire but can't because some telemarketer has your phone line tied
    up? Ever get telemarketing calls on your cellphone where YOU have to pay for
    the incoming call airtime the telemarketer uses?
    <End Paste>

    I guess from your statements that you believe the rights of free speech for
    telemarketers trump the right of people to call for emergency assistance
    with a service they PAY for?
  4. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?


    Because it's irrelevant. You are getting mad at him... and mad at me...
    because you think just because some information was posted that we are in
    support of what happened.

    Actually, I have somewhat revised my opinion of the judge in Denver because
    he was against the law because _he didn't want there to be any exceptions_,
    which would imply that he's on our (consumers') side. Regardless, I said
    nothing that would imply that I'm happy that the law is facing an overturn
    again. I'm not, and you can't assume that I am from what I said.

    Which apparently has not stopped you...

    Anyhow, my only point was that the it is a stretch to ASSUME the person
    you replied to was in favor of the law being overturned because he didn't
    say that he was. He didn't even imply that he was.

    I'm sorry if that makes me anti-consumer, but I can't see how it does.

    --
    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
  5. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Larry Turner wrote:

    > LOL! Peter.
    >
    > I actually have co-workers who TALK on their phones in the bathroom....
    >



    Same here. I also remember who they are and NEVER let them use mine.

    --
    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. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
    protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
    Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
    cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
    wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.

    Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
    the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call on
    a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.


    Stu

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bl1rue$70iv4$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
    > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
    > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
    > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste

    and
    > see if you change your mind!
    >
    >
    > "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    > news:WFWcb.4295$Hd6.2184058@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on

    > First
    > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix

    for
    > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
    > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
    > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to

    cut
    > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against

    > organized
    > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I HATE
    > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that

    her
    > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
    > >
    > > Stu
    > >
    > > "Justin" <justinnomorespam@cjteem.com> wrote in message
    > > news:87a90e1d585c3bb9266cf06fa5699d7c@news.teranews.com...
    > > >
    > > > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:03Icb.4271$pP6.352@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:bkvenl$66m78$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:Fa6dnbw0Y8fnuu6iXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even
    > > > > better,
    > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our
    > > > > free
    > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc? :)
    > > > >
    > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
    > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030925/D7TPJDJ81.html
    > > > >
    > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
    > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
    > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
    > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
    > > > >
    > > > > Bob
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Wonder who was paying them.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  7. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    I'm not in favor of the law being overturned. I'm on the do not call list,
    both the state and federal version of the same. I just think from my
    knowledge of the first amendment that the judge's opinion raises some
    significant constitutional issues and that Congress won't have the courage
    to pass the fix for this ruling (e.g. banning charitable and political fund
    raising from people on the do not call list). The judge might get
    overturned on appeal, but unlike the first judge's ruling, I think that this
    opinion is more problematic and I could see the ruling being upheld. The
    ruling is on Findlaw and you can find a deep link to it off the New York
    Time's website. Give it a hard read and form your own opinion. I hate the
    results, but giving the ruling a hard look, I see the potential for the
    judge being upheld.

    Stu

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:i_GdnR7KZOu6VumiU-KYuA@lmi.net...
    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?

    >
    > Because it's irrelevant. You are getting mad at him... and mad at me...
    > because you think just because some information was posted that we are in
    > support of what happened.
    >
    > Actually, I have somewhat revised my opinion of the judge in Denver

    because
    > he was against the law because _he didn't want there to be any

    exceptions_,
    > which would imply that he's on our (consumers') side. Regardless, I said
    > nothing that would imply that I'm happy that the law is facing an overturn
    > again. I'm not, and you can't assume that I am from what I said.
    >
    > Which apparently has not stopped you...
    >
    > Anyhow, my only point was that the it is a stretch to ASSUME the person
    > you replied to was in favor of the law being overturned because he didn't
    > say that he was. He didn't even imply that he was.
    >
    > I'm sorry if that makes me anti-consumer, but I can't see how it does.
    >
    > --
    > 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
  8. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    A slight modification to my prior post. The ban on unsolicited calls to
    cellphones doesn't purport to exclude various groups from the law.
    Therefore, the law is neutral. The Denver judge's ruling states that a
    complete ban would be fine.

    Stu

    PS: I got hit with a telemarketing call while roaming internationally.
    You are correct, I wasn't pleased.

    "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    news:mH6db.4436$Hd6.2294198@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
    > protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
    > Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
    > cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
    > wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
    >
    > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
    > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call

    on
    > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
    >
    >
    > Stu
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bl1rue$70iv4$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
    > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
    > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
    > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste

    > and
    > > see if you change your mind!
    > >
    > >
    > > "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    > > news:WFWcb.4295$Hd6.2184058@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on

    > > First
    > > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix

    > for
    > > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
    > > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
    > > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to

    > cut
    > > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against

    > > organized
    > > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I

    HATE
    > > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that

    > her
    > > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
    > > >
    > > > Stu
    > > >
    > > > "Justin" <justinnomorespam@cjteem.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:87a90e1d585c3bb9266cf06fa5699d7c@news.teranews.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > > news:03Icb.4271$pP6.352@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:bkvenl$66m78$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:Fa6dnbw0Y8fnuu6iXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    > > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and

    even
    > > > > > better,
    > > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with

    our
    > > > > > free
    > > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc? :)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
    > > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030925/D7TPJDJ81.html
    > > > > >
    > > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
    > > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
    > > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and

    Chris
    > > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Bob
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Wonder who was paying them.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  9. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In article <mH6db.4436$Hd6.2294198@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
    Stuart Friedman wrote:

    > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
    > protected.


    The constitutional right of free speech is a protection from United
    States government imposition only, not from individual US citizen or
    other non-government group imposition. Also, reasonable time and
    place restrictions can still be imposed by the government. Time
    and place restrictions have been found to be constitutional by the
    Supreme Court.

    - Dan
  10. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <KronkKronk@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood of
    >these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
    >dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
    >


    I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
    interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
    costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
    telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
    look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
    not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
    adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
    time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.
  11. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Gee, then according to your freedom of speech crap, it's unconstitutional to
    pass any laws about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

    Remind me to get a VCR or DVD player so I never have to go to theatres
    anymore.

    Note that the text of Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
    Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
    or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
    or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
    Government for a redress of grievances.

    it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
    listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
    to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.



    "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    news:mH6db.4436$Hd6.2294198@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
    > protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
    > Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
    > cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
    > wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
    >
    > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
    > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call

    on
    > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
    >
    >
    > Stu
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bl1rue$70iv4$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
    > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
    > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
    > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste

    > and
    > > see if you change your mind!
    > >
    > >
    > > "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    > > news:WFWcb.4295$Hd6.2184058@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on

    > > First
    > > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix

    > for
    > > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
    > > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
    > > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to

    > cut
    > > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against

    > > organized
    > > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I

    HATE
    > > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that

    > her
    > > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
    > > >
    > > > Stu
    > > >
    > > > "Justin" <justinnomorespam@cjteem.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:87a90e1d585c3bb9266cf06fa5699d7c@news.teranews.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > > news:03Icb.4271$pP6.352@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:bkvenl$66m78$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:Fa6dnbw0Y8fnuu6iXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    > > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and

    even
    > > > > > better,
    > > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with

    our
    > > > > > free
    > > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc? :)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
    > > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030925/D7TPJDJ81.html
    > > > > >
    > > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
    > > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
    > > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and

    Chris
    > > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Bob
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Wonder who was paying them.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  12. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:34:58 GMT, Stuart Friedman <stu@nospam.na> wrote:

    > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
    > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
    > on
    > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.


    You get your landline service for free? I have to pay for mine. It's a
    monthly
    rate, but I'm paying for it. Every second the phone is unavailable because
    a
    telemarketer is tying up the line is a second the service I'm paying for is
    unavailable to me. That is theft of service, as their calls are unwanted,
    something I make quite clear each time one calls.

    You're clearly confused. A right isn't something you can purchase. A right
    isn't
    something you have to pay to exercise. A right simply exists. Just as
    commercials
    have a right to pitch their wares, I have a right to not listen to them.
    Both of
    these are considered "free speech."

    --
    Mark
  13. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    First Amendment 101. The Government is permitted to pass content nuetral
    limitations on free speech such as reasonable time, place, and manner
    restrictions. Where Government gets itself in trouble is that where it
    targets a particular message. That is why a government can ban all signs
    from city hall lawns, but if it permits private individuals to post certain
    generally inoffensive messages there (e.g. Jewish stars, Christmas trees,
    yellow ribbons, etc), it must also permit the more offensive messages to go
    on those lawns, (e.g. swastikas, klan symbols, etc). Calling after 9pm is
    a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Limiting door-to-door
    solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
    using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
    targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
    content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the government
    into trouble.

    Stu

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bl1u19$7bmu2$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:3f74762b$0$183$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
    > >
    > > "DevilsPGD" <yeahbaby@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
    > > news:i9i6nvktpdskhn6gu6cgf0accg49abk0q7@4ax.com...
    > > > In message <<3f734084$0$185$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>> "Thomas T.
    > > > Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> did ramble:
    > > >
    > > > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM)

    in
    > > > >their local time.
    > > >
    > > > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a

    large
    > > > bucket of steaming dogshit.

    > >
    > >
    > > It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time,

    which
    > I
    > > believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
    > >
    > > Tom Veldhouse
    > >
    > >

    >
    > So what's your point? Is it NOT illegal to call after a certain time and
    > just bitch? In that case, can he call from a payphone at 3 AM and say (not
    > offer to sell You like shit so much, I'm gonna send you a free steaming
    > bucket of dogshit? Isn't the keyword here solicit versus just call and
    > bitch? Are there any laws against calling to complain at any time? Can we
    > call the judge and just BITCH ?
    >
    >
  14. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    to Free Speech.

    The NO Call list is no different that hanging a "No Solicitation" sign
    on the front door of my house and protecting my private space while at
    home eating dinner, watching TV or doing anything else.

    If they want to try to sell me something something, drop it in the mail,
    although I usually stand at the Recycle Bin after getting the mail and
    drop all those flyer's in. They never make it past the door into the
    laundry room.
    --
    Mark


    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in article
    <bl32gg$7k169$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>:
    >
    > it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
    > listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
    > to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    > news:mH6db.4436$Hd6.2294198@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > > I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
    > > protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
    > > Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
    > > cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
    > > wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
    > >
    > > Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
    > > the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call

    > on
    > > a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
    > >
    > >
    > > Stu
    > >
    > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:bl1rue$70iv4$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
    > > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
    > > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
    > > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste

    > > and
    > > > see if you change your mind!
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
    > > > news:WFWcb.4295$Hd6.2184058@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
    > > > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
    > > > First
    > > > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix

    > > for
    > > > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
    > > > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
    > > > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to

    > > cut
    > > > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
    > > > organized
    > > > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I

    > HATE
    > > > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that

    > > her
    > > > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
    > > > >
    > > > > Stu
    > > > >
    > > > > "Justin" <justinnomorespam@cjteem.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:87a90e1d585c3bb9266cf06fa5699d7c@news.teranews.com...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:03Icb.4271$pP6.352@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:bkvenl$66m78$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > > news:Fa6dnbw0Y8fnuu6iXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    > > > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and

    > even
    > > > > > > better,
    > > > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with

    > our
    > > > > > > free
    > > > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc? :)
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
    > > > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030925/D7TPJDJ81.html
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
    > > > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
    > > > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and

    > Chris
    > > > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Bob
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Wonder who was paying them.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  15. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <stu@nospam.na> wrote:

    > Limiting door-to-door
    > solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement
    > permits
    > using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when
    > Government
    > targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
    > content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the
    > government
    > into trouble.


    Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
    liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
    porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
    and drug labelling.

    --
    Mark
  16. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    news:vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com...
    > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    > to Free Speech.
    >



    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.
  17. Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    The term commercial free speech is a term used by the courts, not made up by
    yours truly. If you want, I have a copy of a law review on this subject
    that I can privately e-mail to you. Send an e-mail to me. I'm
    stuartfriedman. The dom'n name for me is Ameritech, followed by the d o t
    and a net suffix. Please my manner of presentation, but I'm trying to
    avoid the close cousin of the telemarketer.

    Stu
    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bl4g55$7nom1$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    > news:vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com...
    > > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    > > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    > > to Free Speech.
    > >

    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
  18. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    <psycho@here.there> wrote in message
    news:6f68nv0pmr7c0ga2qa1po4s31ildjvo9tn@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <KronkKronk@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood

    of
    > >these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
    > >dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
    > >

    >
    > I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
    > interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
    > costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
    > telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
    > look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
    > not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
    > adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
    > time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.


    you didn't research far enough.
    you can take that out of state company to florida court. you can be awarded
    up to $10k. that's a good $10 investment.
  19. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in article
    <bl4g55$7nom1$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>:
    >
    > "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    > news:vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com...
    > > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    > > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    > > to Free Speech.
    > >

    >
    >
    > 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.


    Amen!

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:17:00 GMT, "Bob Smith"
    <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:bkvenl$66m78$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >>
    >> "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message
    >> news:Fa6dnbw0Y8fnuu6iXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    >> > Well that didnt take too long folks!
    >> >
    >> > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.

    >>
    >> Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even better,
    >> how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our free
    >> evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc? :)

    >
    >Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
    >http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030925/D7TPJDJ81.html
    >
    >The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
    >Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
    >Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
    >Cannon, R-Utah.


    Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
    they claiming principle?

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "[T]he world is not a perfect place. It is a world filled with malice and
    evil, a world where, today, none of us is truly safe, even in our homes,
    from the very real danger that a total stranger will call us up and demand
    that we change our phone company." - Dave Barry

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?