Telemarketers and the FTC DNC list

[EZ_KhalenSilverThorn]

Ok... I dont have much to this rant, and I know I'll anger our resident telemarketers (Sorry guys/gals, I don't like your chosen profession).


I was really looking forward to this list going into effect and I have let everyone of my friends know about it... and I just decided to read CNN's headlines when...:


money.cnn.com/2003/09/24/...tm?cnn=yes

Thats right kiddies, they are lobbying the Supreme Court that its a violation of their Constitutional Rights.

Violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights my butt. Alturick Shadowalker
Assassin of Redemption and member of TSF

[EZ_Shanar]

Thank god someone finally has some sense.

Now to see if it is upheld. Shanar Nefandus
Level 65 Deciever of Bristlebane
Leader of The Immortalis Extrahi

[EZ_KhalenSilverThorn]

And there would be the resident telemarketer that I was mentioning


For your sake, good luck Shanar... for everyone else in the country who is annoyed as heck about having their privacy and peace and quiet disrupted, I hope this frivilous appeal is quickly discarded. Your (generic your: denoting everyone not me) rights to free speech end where my private space begins... thus you can't walk into my home and begin preaching, selling hair care products, or praising the efforts of X group.

Telemarketers are guilty of disturbing the peace in my (not so) humble opinion.

But, I do sympathize with anyone losing their livelyhood.

--Alturick

[EZ_Shanar]

Well I doubt the appeal will simply be thrown out as it makes some strong points.. I have it in front of me right now actually on my desk. I know it may be unpopular with people but I ask rather than degenerating into the bickering circus that usually happens you realize that for years now laws HAVE been in place to protect you if you do not want to get calls..

This law even has some facets that will likely be signed into law, but come on. Are you aware just to GET the federal list, so I can ensure I am not calling you is more than $7000 a year? And that I cannot just buy the list, every client of mine has to buy the list, at $25 for every area code they want to call.

The whole thing was as much a joke as the RIAA sueing 12 year olds.
Shanar Nefandus
Level 65 Deciever of Bristlebane
Leader of The Immortalis Extrahi

[EZ_Urusai]

Ok, I will admit. Paying for the thing is stupid. But the /ignore feature for the phone would be priceless to people being bothered by the calls.

To put it in MMORPG terms. Imagine trying to chat with your buddy while you screen is scrolling by with people trying to convince your mage that he needs the brand new battleaxe that they have for sale. Or selling scroll with the 9th level wizard spell on it to the anti-magic barbarian?

Edit: Maybe they should have the people adding their names pay a surcharge. Im sure they wouldent mind, hell I wouldent. A small amount of cash is worth not having to get up from dinner or interrupt my favorate show every 5 minutes to see if I want to redo my windows. Edited by: Urusai at: 9/24/03 10:43 am

[EZ_Shanar]

Just to be clear. I agree 100% if you do not want to be called, you should not be called.

What many of you do not realize is the law was about 80 pages and was MUCH more than just a list, and it was unconstitutional.

There are ways in place for you to not get called.. No new law was ever needed for that.

Shanar Nefandus
Level 65 Deciever of Bristlebane
Leader of The Immortalis Extrahi

[EZ_Kinare]

Where is this way to not get called then, Shanar? Where is the one number I can call to prevent myself from ever getting calls at dinner again?

[Nenjin]

It's a weakly enforced concept called the honor system, where you ask them not to call you, and you are supposed to be put on a list of "Do not Calls", and supposedly, you are supposed to be fined if you violate the recipient's wishes. Except when you call the number back, to bitch out the head of the office for not adhereing to the list, you get routed to a voice mail for the company so they don't actually have to deal directly with you. "They will come back, come back again, as long as the Red Earth rolls. He never wasted a tree or a leaf, why should he squander souls?"

"You're a big one....a tall drink of water, but I got to tell you, you don't look too bright. I got a son, stupid as a man who bought his stupid at a 2-for-1 sale, and you remind me of him." -Mr. Nancy

[EZ_Aldarion Shard]

shanar,

let me lay out for you exactly what a person *should* have to do to never receiev another unsolicited telemarketer call at home:

not a @#$% thing.

you may call the people who @#$%ing sign a list saying "call me". I signed no such list. Telemarketer calls are unwelcome and annoying as @#$%, and trying to defend the practice is laughable. The day the system changes to what I just describes, you will have a leg to stand on in your claims of legitamacy. until then, I wish prostate cancer, impotance, and slow deaths on the industry and those who defend it.

Do Not Call needs to be the default @#$%ing condition. Anything else is ridiculous. Veda Kai'Rin

[EZ_KhalenSilverThorn]

I would also like to know that one Kinare...


For years I have been telling each Telemarketer in as polite a manner as possible "Please place me on your do not call list and remove me from your to sell list, thank you"...

Heck I even wait for them to do it until after they finish their primary spiel.


-- Alturick
**Edit self sig nerf** Edited by: KhalenSilverThorn at: 9/24/03 11:03 am

[EZ_Kinare]

I am always polite to real actual person telemarketers, always request to be put on do not call list and remove me from their sell list... but I hate the freaking machines that call me. I call the number that the machine gives me, and it's another @#%$ machine! Christ, even if I WANTED the item in question, I would have a hard time getting it!

[EZ_pulid]

I have a neighbor who for some unknown reason, recieves 5 to 6 per day. That's someone who is being troubled and hassled much more then nessecary, by an evasive method of marketing. They looked into some place/number that could limit it, but to no avail. They don't wish to invest in caller ID, but simply don't answer the phone and request people leave a message and they call back. That is someone who's life has been altered by telemarketers, and which needs to end.

[EZ_Swipey]

I saw this coming as soon as the list was suggested.

The DMA has gobs of money to throw around, and "justice" in America often goes to the highest bidder.

Personally, I'm not that far from just discontinuing phone service entirely. Why the &(*% should I pay $20/month when a good 80-90% of the calls I get are telemarketers that I dont want to hear from? Maybe if all 50,000,000 people who signed up on the national DNC did the same thing, the various phone companies would shut down telemarketers themselves. They know who they are, its just not profit-positive for them to disallow their operation.

[Kaielen]

I actually wouldn't mind getting the occassional call if they would call once about a product and let it drop.

BUT @#%$ YOU PEOPLE IN THE ASS WHO CALL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! It is unconstitutional for me to have to endure some @#%$ @#%$ calling me day in and day out wanting to sell me some piece of @#%$ @#%$ that no store would bother carry on their shelves! @#%$ all telemarketers who think they have the right to call me when I tell them not to or when I don't want them to! What's that you say? They're not psychic? Well then STOP @#%$ CALLING PEOPLE! @#%$! If I want to @#%$ buy something I'll DRIVE TO THE STORE! America is about majority. You tell me who would win. My viewpoint or the @#%$ telemarketers?

[EZ_Melodie Songbird]

Amendment I

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.



This is their argument and it's strong. However, your Constitutional Rights against the government stop when they violate someone elses rights. Who knows how this will work out.

I want one of you to take the United States Constitution and make a strong case as to why they shouldn't be able to call.

EDIT: Use some case law to support your argument too. For example, for this one we might also look at R.A.V. V. St Paul (maybe have city wrong)? In this case a Juvanile was convicted of a hate crime from burning a cross in some black peoples yard. It was fenced in. The supreme court reversed the conviction and said that he was aloud to do that acording to the 1st amm and there could be no laws passed to block the message. They should have charged him with arson, tresspassing.. etc. Either way, you can't block the message. So come up with a good argument, this should get interesting.

And just for the record.. I hate them and wish that I would never get a call again from someone selling anything. Edited by: Melodie Songbird at: 9/25/03 11:54 am

[Lisboa]

Commercial speech doesn't receive the same protections of free speech.

For commercial speech to come within protection of First Amendment, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S., 119 S.Ct. 1923 (1999)

In this case, Congress does not put a blanket restriction on this commercial speech, rather individuals who wish to be free from the speech can put themselves on a list that exempts them. Congress has a substantial government interest as well, namely, protecting the privacy of individuals to be free from unwanted solicitations. Edited by: Lisboa at: 9/25/03 12:00 pm

[Aidden]

Melodie...

The Concept of a telephone wasnt even a glint in the minds of the worlds best inventors at the time of writting of the constitution.

That said, the phone allows someone to enter my home uninvited if I did not ask them to call me by providing them with my phone number. Free Speech laws do not entitle you to enter my home and disturb my privacy.

[EZ_Synrax]

If you've watched Conan O'Brien, you would know the true purpose for Bell's invention of the telephone. Excellently portrayed by Max Weinberg I might add.

[EZ_Swipey]

The 1st amendment also guarantees the right of free assembly. But that doesnt mean people allowed to freely assemble on private property, now does it?

Basically, Aidden hit it on the head. My phone is IN MY HOUSE, it is not a public forum like a sidewalk. And having a phone in the house does not mean I've given implicit consent for just anyone to call me uninvited any more than having a doorway in it means just anyone is invited to come in.

[DarthEnderX]

"Watson, I want you"..."in bed!"

Cut AND paste

I'm gonna invent a telephone that checks the number of incoming calls before sounding the ringer and instead of blocking numbers I put on a list, it blocks ALL numbers EXCEPT those I put on a list.

Seriously, I'm up late at night, and I sleep till the afternoon, and those @#%$ wake me up every @#%$ day without fail.

And I swear to god when I get woken up and I pick up the phone and I hear, 'Please stay on the line for...' I have to buy a new phone every @#%$ time.

Your calling ME and putting ME on hold?!

@#%$ you! @#%$ you right in the @#%$ eye! "Classes are not that out of balance -AbsorEQ"

[EZ_joekreeper1]

There should be a button on everyone's phone that when pressed would cause a spring loaded spike to shoot from the earpiece of a telemarketers phone driving it into the ear canal of said telemarketer, that way if you want info on their product or service then you can listen to them, if not SPROOOINNG SPLUTCH!!!!!! telemarketer flops over dead then the telemarketers would start a list of their own. "Classes are not that out of balance --AbsorEQ"


"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"

[EZ_Urusai]

That whole Call me and put me on hold thing ticks me off every time as well. Even at work it happens to me on occasion. I usually just hang up on them as well and they call me back when they are ready to talk.

[Nenjin]

I just wanted to add what everyone else has already said. It's an easier issue for the American public to decide and agree on that inner city crime, plummiting quality of education, failing state budgets and the like.

I only wish people could come to a consensus like this quicker. "They will come back, come back again, as long as the Red Earth rolls. He never wasted a tree or a leaf, why should he squander souls?"

"You're a big one....a tall drink of water, but I got to tell you, you don't look too bright. I got a son, stupid as a man who bought his stupid at a 2-for-1 sale, and you remind me of him." -Mr. Nancy

[EZ_Melodie Songbird]

You all are sorta wrong about not being able to go on others property, for example calling someone or.... (read below)

R.A.V Vrs City of St. Paul.

Look up this case law if you don't believe me.
In this case a juvanile went onto a black family's personal property. The property was FENCED IN. They burned a cross on the black family's personal property. They Juvanile was arrested and convicted.

THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED IT AND HE GOT NOTHING. The first amm is clear when it says that the government can not pass a law that hinders free speech. There are a few exceptions to this, but unless a Telemarketer is selling kiddy porn it's gonna be hard to pass this law. The law is going to have to change for this to go through. Now you could take them to Civil court if you can PROVE that their call caused you some sort of cash value LOSS. This is person vers person though. The difference is that the government hasn't made a law against it.

[EZ_Melodie Songbird]

OHHH PS. If they change the LAW then I was right, because as it is written now this is unconstitutional. Only an act of congress is going to CHANGE the law to make this illegal in the FUTURE.

[EZ_Squink McPoke]

Is true that for the price of changing the name of the company, a telemarketing firm can wipe their company's do not call list clean? i.e. Month 1, Company X has 300 people on the "Company X cannot call me" list. Month 3, Company X files paperwork and becomes Company Y, thereby everyone on "Company X cannot call me" list is free to be called by Company Y, which is the same company, but legally a new/different company.

Or along similar lines, Company A hires Company B to telemarket their product for them. Company B over time gets a list of people that they cannot call but Company B doesn't shadily restructure as above. So Company A switches to using Company C, at which point Company C can call all the people that were on Company B's do not call list on behalf of Company A, even though as far as the people being called are concerned, they already said they didn't want to be called about that product or on behalf of that company.

I, too, work graveyard shift and sleep during the day. My life is very much affected by people calling me, on "business" that I do not want calling me. If they have the "right" to call people at home, the people at home that do not want to be called should have the "right" to say "@#%$ off, leave me the hell alone".

[EZ_Dazzler Twodirks]

Bah i got 5 calls in the last two days from the SAME NUMBER and i only have a cellphone.

yah i really love being woken up by a computer on an 888 number saying "Please hold and an operator will be with you shortly" up yours telemarketers.

I thought cellphones were off limits to those guys. Dazzler Twodirks High Speed Quisinart for Hire
Guildleader of the Blades of Honor
Monsters Slain, Pockets Picked, Corpses Dragged, and more.
No job too small, no fee too large.
Card Carrying Member of The Safehouse.

"Classes are not that out of balance -AbsorEQ"

[EZ_Ciba]

Quote:R.A.V Vrs City of St. Paul.

Try reading the case Melodie. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance is invalid under the First Amendment.

Quote:[b[From the Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance[/b]
"Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in otherson the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

I believe they tried him under this alone. The court's ruling had nothing to do with going on other people's property, it simply held that hate crime legislation must conform to Amendment I standards.