1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  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!
    Dismiss Notice

repercussion of federal DNC

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by 127.0.0.1, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    why are telemarketers the only ones targeted by the DNC? shouldn't the
    non-prophet organisations also be included?
    if the purpose is to stop annoying calls during inconvenient times, then all
    unsolicited calls should be blocked in that DNC.

    but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    censorship.

    door to door salespeople are also in this category.
    people handing out pamphlets are also included.
    don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    doorstep)

    with the passing of the DMCA, libraries can no longer copy excerpts from
    DVD's or be used for educational purposes. homeowners are also not allowed
    to archive commercial DVD's that they own.

    there are consequences to living in a free country. gota take the good with
    the bad.
    other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners, strip clubs viewable on
    public streets, convicted child molesters living next door, junk mail, and
    seat belt laws.

    if you want to live in censorship, there are plenty of other countries that
    will control your liberties.

    politicians see this issue as a voting issue, and not as a constitutional
    issue.
    over 50 million voters pushing to reduce their rights for the sake of
    convenience.
     



    › See More: repercussion of federal DNC
  2. Double U

    Double U Guest

    Some time around Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:12:20 GMT (give or take a month), someone
    called "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not> rambled on about:

    >politicians see this issue as a voting issue, and not as a constitutional
    >issue.
    >over 50 million voters pushing to reduce their rights for the sake of
    >convenience.


    Sorry dude, I pay for the phone, the rights of the use should belong to me. If
    I don't want people calling me, there are no rights taken away. ...Then should
    take away charities and political calls as well.
     
  3. 127.0.0.1 wrote:
    > why are telemarketers the only ones targeted by the DNC? shouldn't the
    > non-prophet organisations also be included?
    > if the purpose is to stop annoying calls during inconvenient times, then all
    > unsolicited calls should be blocked in that DNC.
    >
    > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > censorship.
    >
    > door to door salespeople are also in this category.
    > people handing out pamphlets are also included.
    > don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    > doorstep)
    >
    > with the passing of the DMCA, libraries can no longer copy excerpts from
    > DVD's or be used for educational purposes. homeowners are also not allowed
    > to archive commercial DVD's that they own.
    >
    > there are consequences to living in a free country. gota take the good with
    > the bad.
    > other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners, strip clubs viewable on
    > public streets, convicted child molesters living next door, junk mail, and
    > seat belt laws.
    >
    > if you want to live in censorship, there are plenty of other countries that
    > will control your liberties.
    >
    > politicians see this issue as a voting issue, and not as a constitutional
    > issue.
    > over 50 million voters pushing to reduce their rights for the sake of
    > convenience.
    >
    >
    >

    ummmmmmmmmm...........I don't see any repercussion anywhere in this post
    regarding the DNC list. All of the possible 'problems' don't apply,
    because you seem to forget that people are voluntarily having their name
    put on this list. If there were a list that prevented me from being
    approached by people handing out pamphlets, I'd gladly join that one,
    too (not going to happen, I know, but you get the point).

    THis is the second post of yours that mentions censorship, and I ask the
    same question again- where is the censorship? I don't want
    telemarketers calling my house. This list allows that to be a reality.
     
  4. 127.0.0.1 wrote:
    > why are telemarketers the only ones targeted by the DNC? shouldn't the
    > non-prophet organisations also be included?
    > if the purpose is to stop annoying calls during inconvenient times, then all
    > unsolicited calls should be blocked in that DNC.
    >
    > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > censorship.
    >
    > door to door salespeople are also in this category.
    > people handing out pamphlets are also included.
    > don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    > doorstep)
    >
    > with the passing of the DMCA, libraries can no longer copy excerpts from
    > DVD's or be used for educational purposes. homeowners are also not allowed
    > to archive commercial DVD's that they own.
    >
    > there are consequences to living in a free country. gota take the good with
    > the bad.
    > other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners, strip clubs viewable on
    > public streets, convicted child molesters living next door, junk mail, and
    > seat belt laws.
    >
    > if you want to live in censorship, there are plenty of other countries that
    > will control your liberties.
    >
    > politicians see this issue as a voting issue, and not as a constitutional
    > issue.
    > over 50 million voters pushing to reduce their rights for the sake of
    > convenience.
    >
    >
    >

    ummmmmmmmmm...........I don't see any repercussion anywhere in this post
    regarding the DNC list. All of the possible 'problems' don't apply,
    because you seem to forget that people are voluntarily having their name
    put on this list. If there were a list that prevented me from being
    approached by people handing out pamphlets, I'd gladly join that one,
    too (not going to happen, I know, but you get the point).

    THis is the second post of yours that mentions censorship, and I ask the
    same question again- where is the censorship? I don't want
    telemarketers calling my house. This list allows that to be a reality.
     
  5. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "127.0.0.1"
    <unavailable@spam-me.not> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    >censorship.


    >door to door salespeople are also in this category.
    >people handing out pamphlets are also included.


    "No trespassing - no solicitors" signs take care of that. They also
    take care of religious door-knockers.

    >don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart


    That's up to Wal-Mart - it's their property.

    > and at your doorstep)


    See above.

    >other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners, strip clubs viewable on
    >public streets


    The building is - nude women aren't.

    > convicted child molesters living next door


    Wherever they live, it'll be next door to someone. The only
    alternatives are a death sentence or sending them to another planet.
     
  6. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:09:58 -0400, Double U
    <PleaseSpamMe@myEmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Sorry dude, I pay for the phone, the rights of the use should belong to me. If
    >I don't want people calling me, there are no rights taken away. ...Then should
    >take away charities and political calls as well.


    If a telemarketer wants to call you, it should be on a phone he pays
    for. Maybe some telemarketing association should buy each of us a
    phone line on which to get telemarketing calls.
     
  7. Bruce Clark

    Bruce Clark Guest


    > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > censorship.


    It's amazing how many idiots on the telemarketing side use this same rouse of censorship. I don't
    think they are even that stupid. Just like spammers, they have known for a long time that their
    business model is doomed. It's based on trespass. My phone lines (same as my T1 internet lines) I
    pay for and I have a right to control who, what and when others trespass my property. Spammers
    forget that their business model is not scalable. There are 12 million businesses in the U.S. If
    each sent out just one spam to you per year, that would work out to 1,370 per hour! How effective
    would e-mail (or telemarketing) be if everyone was getting 1300+ per hour 24/7? That is what's
    already happening with e-mail spam. People are ignoring it more now than ever. So the spammers send
    more to make up. People ignore more.. so on it goes. Now, e-mail is becoming less and less useful.
    Something I pay for no longer serves me as it should because of free loaders who think that their
    free-speech rights allow them to take over something I pay for for their own gain.

    Even if we started taxing telemarketers so much that everyone in the US got free phone lines, the
    business model is doomed. I'd take the dykes to phone line and revert back to smoke signals before
    I'd put up with 1300 calls per hour.

    Bruce
     
  8. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Bruce Clark" <test@test.com> wrote in message
    news:Rtldb.602946$o%2.283090@sccrnsc02...
    >
    > > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > > censorship.

    >
    > It's amazing how many idiots on the telemarketing side use this same rouse

    of censorship. I don't
    > think they are even that stupid. Just like spammers, they have known for a

    long time that their
    > business model is doomed. It's based on trespass. My phone lines (same as

    my T1 internet lines) I
    > pay for and I have a right to control who, what and when others trespass

    my property. Spammers
    > forget that their business model is not scalable. There are 12 million

    businesses in the U.S. If
    > each sent out just one spam to you per year, that would work out to 1,370

    per hour! How effective
    > would e-mail (or telemarketing) be if everyone was getting 1300+ per hour

    24/7? That is what's
    > already happening with e-mail spam. People are ignoring it more now than

    ever. So the spammers send
    > more to make up. People ignore more.. so on it goes. Now, e-mail is

    becoming less and less useful.
    > Something I pay for no longer serves me as it should because of free

    loaders who think that their
    > free-speech rights allow them to take over something I pay for for their

    own gain.
    >
    > Even if we started taxing telemarketers so much that everyone in the US

    got free phone lines, the
    > business model is doomed. I'd take the dykes to phone line and revert back

    to smoke signals before
    > I'd put up with 1300 calls per hour.
    >
    > Bruce


    i get very few spam in my main email. i get about 2-3 telemaketers per month
    (usually from local phone services).
    i'm sorry to hear you are receiving over 1300 calls per hour. may i suggest
    you don't blindly give out your phone number? also, i would recommend
    getting a new number and make it unlisted. unless you are the lazy type and
    wish the government will do all this for you.

    btw, what steps have you done to avoid spammers and telemarketers? there is
    a wonderful internet tool called google. you should read up on it. i prefer
    to control my way of living and not let the government do it for me.
     
  9. 127.0.0.1 wrote:


    >
    > i get very few spam in my main email. i get about 2-3 telemaketers per
    > month (usually from local phone services).


    They have obviously realized that its hard to have a conversation with
    someone who makes no sense.

    > i'm sorry to hear you are receiving over 1300 calls per hour. may i
    > suggest you don't blindly give out your phone number? also, i would
    > recommend getting a new number and make it unlisted. unless you are the
    > lazy type and wish the government will do all this for you.


    Yeah, I'm lazy- too lazy to put you in my killfile. And, unlike you, I am
    not a paranoid, anti-establishment, uninformed troll. Do you have enough
    kerosene for the generators? I hear the commies are coming.

    >
    > btw, what steps have you done to avoid spammers and telemarketers? there
    > is a wonderful internet tool called google. you should read up on it. i
    > prefer to control my way of living and not let the government do it for
    > me.


    When I pay for services that are used in the privacy of my home, any action
    taken by an individual or business entity on those services without my
    permission is an invasion of my privacy. Whether it be a spam email or
    telemarketing call. And unlike you, I don't mind having telemarketers
    check a list to see if they have my permission.

    Now do us all a favor- step away from the computer, call a cab, and go to
    the hospital. With the right doctor, they might be able to remove your
    head from your ass.
     
  10. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    When I get my local and long distance phone for free, then I will stop
    complaining about telemarketers. Until they pay that $65.00/month for
    my local phone number, back off, because I pay for it and I don't want
    to waste time with them!!

    AD

    127.0.0.1 wrote:
    > why are telemarketers the only ones targeted by the DNC? shouldn't the
    > non-prophet organisations also be included?
    > if the purpose is to stop annoying calls during inconvenient times, then all
    > unsolicited calls should be blocked in that DNC.
    >
    > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > censorship.
    >
    > door to door salespeople are also in this category.
    > people handing out pamphlets are also included.
    > don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    > doorstep)
    >
    > with the passing of the DMCA, libraries can no longer copy excerpts from
    > DVD's or be used for educational purposes. homeowners are also not allowed
    > to archive commercial DVD's that they own.
    >
    > there are consequences to living in a free country. gota take the good with
    > the bad.
    > other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners, strip clubs viewable on
    > public streets, convicted child molesters living next door, junk mail, and
    > seat belt laws.
    >
    > if you want to live in censorship, there are plenty of other countries that
    > will control your liberties.
    >
    > politicians see this issue as a voting issue, and not as a constitutional
    > issue.
    > over 50 million voters pushing to reduce their rights for the sake of
    > convenience.
    >
    >
    >
     
  11. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:dSodb.2849$qK1.2943046@news2.news.adelphia.net...

    > Yeah, I'm lazy- too lazy to put you in my killfile. And, unlike you, I am
    > not a paranoid, anti-establishment, uninformed troll. Do you have enough
    > kerosene for the generators? I hear the commies are coming.


    hehe, exactly... you are too lazy to put me in the killfile list.

    > > btw, what steps have you done to avoid spammers and telemarketers? there
    > > is a wonderful internet tool called google. you should read up on it. i
    > > prefer to control my way of living and not let the government do it for
    > > me.

    >
    > When I pay for services that are used in the privacy of my home, any

    action
    > taken by an individual or business entity on those services without my
    > permission is an invasion of my privacy.


    did you give those advertisers on your pay cable tv permission to show there
    ads to you? i didn't think so.

    > Whether it be a spam email or
    > telemarketing call. And unlike you, I don't mind having telemarketers
    > check a list to see if they have my permission.


    have you checked your state for an existing DNC? i didn't think so either.
    what state are you from? i don't mind doing someone else's homework (i'm not
    lazy).

    > Now do us all a favor- step away from the computer, call a cab, and go to
    > the hospital. With the right doctor, they might be able to remove your
    > head from your ass.


    you have the right to put me in a killfile list. why do you insist for me to
    not to post?
     
  12. 127.0.0.1 wrote:

    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:dSodb.2849$qK1.2943046@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    >> Yeah, I'm lazy- too lazy to put you in my killfile. And, unlike you, I
    >> am
    >> not a paranoid, anti-establishment, uninformed troll. Do you have enough
    >> kerosene for the generators? I hear the commies are coming.

    >
    > hehe, exactly... you are too lazy to put me in the killfile list.


    I may have to change my mind about this- but the ASPCA will probably nab me
    for cruelty to animals.


    >
    >> > btw, what steps have you done to avoid spammers and telemarketers?
    >> > there is a wonderful internet tool called google. you should read up on
    >> > it. i prefer to control my way of living and not let the government do
    >> > it for me.

    >>
    >> When I pay for services that are used in the privacy of my home, any

    > action
    >> taken by an individual or business entity on those services without my
    >> permission is an invasion of my privacy.

    >
    > did you give those advertisers on your pay cable tv permission to show
    > there ads to you? i didn't think so.


    Yes I did. When you watch COMMERCIAL television, it comes with COMMERCIALS.
    When I buy PRIVATE telephone service, I get to set the terms of that
    PRIVACY. I can slow down if I'm going too fast- I realize that English as
    a second language is tough, espacially when stupid is the first language of
    choice.

    >
    >> Whether it be a spam email or
    >> telemarketing call. And unlike you, I don't mind having telemarketers
    >> check a list to see if they have my permission.

    >
    > have you checked your state for an existing DNC? i didn't think so either.
    > what state are you from? i don't mind doing someone else's homework (i'm
    > not lazy).


    On the state list- on the national list for that matter. And I'd be on a
    No-Spam list, No-Home-Solicitation list, and No-Junk_Mail list, if they
    existed. You see, you need to stop confusing lazy with having a life. I
    don't have time to tell 10 telemarketers a day to take me off their list,
    because I have a job, supporting myself, my family, and your welfare check.
    Try it sometime, because you have way too much free time on your hands.


    >
    >> Now do us all a favor- step away from the computer, call a cab, and go to
    >> the hospital. With the right doctor, they might be able to remove your
    >> head from your ass.

    >
    > you have the right to put me in a killfile list. why do you insist for me
    > to not to post?


    Who told you not topost? I told you to get your head out of your ass- are
    you this stupid in real life, or is the lobotomy a requirement back on your
    home planet?
     
  13. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:_0qdb.2859$qK1.2958713@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > 127.0.0.1 wrote:
    > > did you give those advertisers on your pay cable tv permission to show
    > > there ads to you? i didn't think so.

    >
    > Yes I did. When you watch COMMERCIAL television, it comes with

    COMMERCIALS.
    > When I buy PRIVATE telephone service, I get to set the terms of that
    > PRIVACY. I can slow down if I'm going too fast- I realize that English as
    > a second language is tough, espacially when stupid is the first language

    of
    > choice.


    calm down, take a deep breath and relax.
    did you know your phone number is public domain? go look in the white pages.
    mine is unlisted. why didn't you do the same?
    you're correct with the commercial tv. but you still didn't give them
    permission (it's not in your cable tv contract).

    > >> Whether it be a spam email or
    > >> telemarketing call. And unlike you, I don't mind having telemarketers
    > >> check a list to see if they have my permission.

    > >
    > > have you checked your state for an existing DNC? i didn't think so

    either.
    > > what state are you from? i don't mind doing someone else's homework (i'm
    > > not lazy).

    >
    > On the state list- on the national list for that matter. And I'd be on a
    > No-Spam list, No-Home-Solicitation list, and No-Junk_Mail list, if they
    > existed. You see, you need to stop confusing lazy with having a life. I
    > don't have time to tell 10 telemarketers a day to take me off their list,
    > because I have a job, supporting myself, my family, and your welfare

    check.
    > Try it sometime, because you have way too much free time on your hands.


    what state are you in? if you are indeed in a state dnc and still getting 10
    telemarketers a day then you will be $10k x 10 richer. i have a family too,
    that's why i put the effort into preventing telemarketers from disturbing
    us.
    why would i be on welfare? if you do a google ng search with my nick, you
    will see that i'm building a house in florida.
    other searches should reveal other luxuries i own.
    i don't watch commercial tv, so i do have alot of free time to spend with
    family and hobby.

    > >> Now do us all a favor- step away from the computer, call a cab, and go

    to
    > >> the hospital. With the right doctor, they might be able to remove your
    > >> head from your ass.

    > >
    > > you have the right to put me in a killfile list. why do you insist for

    me
    > > to not to post?

    >
    > Who told you not topost? I told you to get your head out of your ass- are
    > you this stupid in real life, or is the lobotomy a requirement back on

    your
    > home planet?


    "Now do us all a favor- step away from the computer, call a cab, and go to
    the hospital"
    this sounds like an indirect statement for me to shut up.

    i do apologize that this thread is becoming a holier than thou flame.
     
  14. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:_0qdb.2859$qK1.2958713@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > 127.0.0.1 wrote:


    > > have you checked your state for an existing DNC? i didn't think so

    either.
    > > what state are you from? i don't mind doing someone else's homework (i'm
    > > not lazy).

    >
    > On the state list- on the national list for that matter. And I'd be on a
    > No-Spam list, No-Home-Solicitation list, and No-Junk_Mail list, if they
    > existed. You see, you need to stop confusing lazy with having a life. I
    > don't have time to tell 10 telemarketers a day to take me off their list,
    > because I have a job, supporting myself, my family, and your welfare

    check.
    > Try it sometime, because you have way too much free time on your hands.


    are you in colorado? i can't really tell from your ip address.
    if so, here's a helpful link (colorado has a state DNC)

    http://donotcall.com/Colorado/
     
  15. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:09:30 GMT, 127.0.0.1 <unavailable@spam-me.not>
    wrote:


    > did you know your phone number is public domain? go look in the white
    > pages.
    > mine is unlisted. why didn't you do the same?


    The telephone company has taken it upon themselves to publish my phone
    number.
    They do so without my freely given permission, and want me to pay for them
    not
    to do so.


    --
    Mark
     
  16. 127.0.0.1 wrote:


    >
    > calm down, take a deep breath and relax.
    > did you know your phone number is public domain? go look in the white
    > pages. mine is unlisted. why didn't you do the same?



    While my phone number is published, that does not make it public domain. I
    pay for the service, and I dictate how it will be used. And why should I
    pay for a service, whether it be an unlisted number, caller ID, or any
    other service to block unwanted calls, when it can be done for free?

    > you're correct with the commercial tv. but you still didn't give them
    > permission (it's not in your cable tv contract).


    I do by turning my TV on, knowing that there will be commercials. Whether I
    watch them or not is my choice.


    > what state are you in? if you are indeed in a state dnc and still getting
    > 10 telemarketers a day then you will be $10k x 10 richer. i have a family
    > too, that's why i put the effort into preventing telemarketers from
    > disturbing us.


    In your mind, what is the difference between a state DNC and the one under
    discussion here? And if you say there is no difference, how can you
    justify recommending one over the other?

    > why would i be on welfare? if you do a google ng search with my nick, you
    > will see that i'm building a house in florida.
    > other searches should reveal other luxuries i own.
    > i don't watch commercial tv, so i do have alot of free time to spend with
    > family and hobby.


    Good for you- and thanks for the vanity plug.


    >
    > i do apologize that this thread is becoming a holier than thou flame.


    Not a flame, just frustration. Two different times, I have asked where the'
    federal censorship' you claim will happen comes into play, with no
    response. On numerous ocassions, you have directed people to their state's
    DNC list if they feel they want to stop telemarketing calls, which does not
    agree with your argument against a federal list. Instead of answering
    questions, you continue to ramble on.
     
  17. Mark Allread wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:09:30 GMT, 127.0.0.1 <unavailable@spam-me.not>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >> did you know your phone number is public domain? go look in the white
    >> pages.
    >> mine is unlisted. why didn't you do the same?

    >
    > The telephone company has taken it upon themselves to publish my phone
    > number.
    > They do so without my freely given permission, and want me to pay for them
    > not
    > to do so.
    >
    >

    Good point Mark- I had never thought about it like that.
     
  18. 127.0.0.1

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:tJrdb.2889$qK1.2978553@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    > Not a flame, just frustration. Two different times, I have asked where

    the'
    > federal censorship' you claim will happen comes into play, with no
    > response. On numerous ocassions, you have directed people to their state's
    > DNC list if they feel they want to stop telemarketing calls, which does

    not
    > agree with your argument against a federal list. Instead of answering
    > questions, you continue to ramble on.


    I don't have an answer for you.
    it scares me to see the federal government discriminating against one type
    of speech (commercial).
    the lesser of two evils, state vs. federal. although there is already a
    private DNC available through Direct Marketing Assoc.
    http://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offtelephonedave
    federal telephone consumer protection act (TCPA) also provides individuals
    protection from telemarketers.

    do we really need federal DNC when there are already tools available for
    those that don't want to be bothered?
    remember COPA? federal internet censorship to protect children (1998). it
    was passed because parents didn't know how to keep online pornography away
    from their kids computers. this was also a freedom of speech issue.
    http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/ACLU_v_Reno_II/20010522_eff_supct_pr.html
     
  19. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "127.0.0.1" <unavailable@spam-me.not>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    >doorstep)


    The only reason my mother has never gotten a local No Solicitors sticker
    for her front door is that she wants the girl scouts.

    --
    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.
    "My nanny is a Madonna whore." - Kirstie Alley
     
  20. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.verizon:121013

    127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > why are telemarketers the only ones targeted by the DNC? shouldn't the
    > non-prophet organisations also be included?


    They probably should. It's a shame that they're not.

    > if the purpose is to stop annoying calls during inconvenient times, then all
    > unsolicited calls should be blocked in that DNC.


    I agree!

    > but where does it stop? setting this precedent allows for other types of
    > censorship.


    What about a Do Not Call list is censorship? If a telemarketer wants to
    express their opinion that I should by something, they're free to take
    out a TV ad, newspaper ad, or shout it out from the rooftops. their
    speech is not being curtailed.

    > door to door salespeople are also in this category.


    No, see, I don't pay for door to door slaespeople's gas, or for their
    car, or their travel expenses. I DO pay for my phone line
    (specifically, my wireless airtime) and when a telemarketer calls me,
    *I* am in effect being forced to pay for the resources *THEY* are using,
    for a sales pitch that I do not want. The Do Not Call list in effect
    states that I am unwilling to waste money to hear these sales pitches.

    Would you find it acceptable for a door to door salesman to give you a
    sales pitch, and then bill you for his travel expenses?

    > people handing out pamphlets are also included.


    No. Again, I'm not paying money to print those pamphlets out. And if I
    don't want a pamphlet, I can either avoid that person, refuse to take
    the pamphlet, or take the pamphlet and immediately throw it in the garbage.

    Do you think it is acceptable for a person passing out pamphlets to
    require you to pay them for the materials spent in printing those
    pamphlets up?

    > don't forget those annoying girlscout cookie orders (at wal-mart and at your
    > doorstep)


    A girl scout will only charge me if I buy cookies from them (in which
    case I'm buying their product). If I don't buy their product, I don't
    get billed for the time and resources they wasted in trying to sell me
    their cookies.


    > with the passing of the DMCA, libraries can no longer copy excerpts from
    > DVD's or be used for educational purposes. homeowners are also not allowed
    > to archive commercial DVD's that they own.


    How does this relate to the do not call list? Oh, I know! The DMCA was
    a successful lobbying effort by corporations to force unreasonable
    copyright restrictions beyond what was originally intended by copyright
    law, effectively wiping out fair use. The striking down of the DNC
    list, meanwhile, is an effective corporate lobbying effort to force
    unreasonable amounts of sales pitches to my telephone, at my expense.

    If anything, telemarketers are violating MY free speech, by saying that
    I CANNOT express my displeasure for telemarketers. I'm not allowed to
    pre-emptively tell them "No, I don't want telemarketing calls."


    > other examples similar to this: pop up porn banners,


    Pop up porn banners are just fine, as long as I am allowed to have my
    Mozilla browser block pop up ads. Are you saying that you advocate
    declaring the Mozilla browser unconstitutional, because it blocks pop up
    ads? It's the same principle: I'm saying "I don't want this." By your
    reasoning, my browser MUST allow all pop up ads.

    > strip clubs viewable on public streets,


    Perfectly fine, as long as I'm not required to go inside them. Are you
    saying that I'm violating the porn shops' constitutional right to free
    speech by not stopping in and looking at what they have to sell? By
    your reasoning, it's unconscionable for me to not browse their wares,
    but I'm not allowing them to try and sell me something.

    > convicted child molesters living next door,


    Quite fine, as long as they keep to themselves and do not repeat their
    offense. Are you saying it's okay for them to continue to molest
    children, and if I have a child and they molest him or her, I have to
    just accept that?

    > junk mail,


    I throw it away. Is that unconstitutional? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I
    was REQUIRED to read all my junk mail.

    I'm sorry, but your reasoning, just like the judge who claims DNC is
    unconstitutional is FLAWED. The DNC list does not say "all
    telemarketing is banned." It says "the people to whom these phone
    numbers are assigned have expressed that they do not want to hear your
    sales pitches. Do not call them. You are free to sell your wares to
    other phone numbers or to find other ways to sell to these people."


    > and seat belt laws.


    Frankly, I don't think we need seatbelt laws. If someone wants to kill
    themselves in an accident, that's perfectly fine by me. In fact, I
    think insurance companies should disqualify people for medical coverage
    of car accidents if it can be proven that they were not wearing a
    seatbelt, unless a defect in the car or the restraint system prevented
    the seatbelt from operating. They made the choice not to wear it, and
    should take full responsibility for the consequences.


    > if you want to live in censorship, there are plenty of other countries that
    > will control your liberties.


    See above. The DNC is not censorship!
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?