'Do not call' list blocked by court

CNN Money ^ | September 24, 2003 | Reuters

[rattrap]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national "do not call" list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls, the Direct Marketing Association said on Wednesday.

The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to the DMA.

[kingu]

It is like having door to door salesmen showing up at your house day after day right at supper time ringing the door bell till either you or the answering machine picks up....and this even after ya told the sob not to come to your house anymore...someone needs to invent a digital pit bull to sic on these poopie heads

No, it's like having the door to door salesman use your car to get to your house. We pay for the telephone services, we pay the taxes, and telemarketers get a virtual free ride paying about $40 per phone line for unlimited calling.

They're spending our money to annoy us, and that ticks me off to no end.

[Burlem]

Judges seem to exert their authority of the public.......50 million sign -ups? The judges are running this country, the heck waht voters say or want...time for another revolution?

[Congressman Billybob]

We need the phone number of the court house. I think the judge should get some calls from people who wish to express their opinion of this decision. (And, I firmly believe this is another wild-hair decision that will not survive on appeal. But in the meantime, the telemarketers will still be calling us.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Lessons for Iraq from General Washington, Major Andre, and Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler," discussion thread on FR. Article is also on ChronWatch.

[ModelBreaker]

Now they have 50 million verified names and phone numbers. What a great scam!!

Do you think the major telemarketers don't have these numbers? Names and numbers are SO easy to get.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Nah - just answer every temarketing call rudely, while using bad language and a threatening tone. At some point, they'll have to pay their employees too much to take the abuse.

[ibheath]

I know I am going to get flammed for this comment, but here goes...

I don't have a problem with this ruling. I am not a telemarketer, but I am perfectly capable of hanging up on telemarketers, or letting the answering machine get it. Just as I am capable of deleting and blocking spam messeges. This is not tresspassing. I am just as oppossed to smoking bans, abusive use of emminent domain, etc...

[Gorzaloon]

Anyone know the name of the robed thug, er, I mean judge?

It is probably written on the DMA's check. They are the ones that cripple all the antispam legislation, too, with their deep pockets.

[logic101.net]

Ok, the FTC overstepped its authority. How about how the courts overstep their authority every day and violate not only their oath of office but the very Constitution they have sworn to defend?

Oh, never mind; I forgot - the courts are GOD and no longer subject to the Constitution!

Mark A Sity

[Labyrinthos]

One court against 50 million. It's time to take the court to task....

Hold onto your horses cowboy. Has anyone slamming the court's decision actually read it? (Be honest.) If not, then you're no better than the liberal liars who slammed Ann Coulter's book before reading it, and have called Mel Gibson's movie about the death of Christ anti-semetic even though the movie isn't finished and won't be released for months.

I haven't read the court's decision yet either. And even though I detest telemarketing (I've already signed on to the "do not call lsit"), the seperation of powers doctrine in the Constitution prohibits executive agencies such as the FTC from regulating beyond the scope of their authority as delegated by Congress. If the FTC lacks the authority to regulate in this particular area (and I don't know the answer either way), then we should be applauding the Federal District Court judge for what he did no matter how popular the regulation at issue, and hope that more judges will follow suit when reviewing the legality of bureaurocratic initiatives.

[Durus]

I agree with you completely. I fail to see where any alphabet angency is given the constitutional authority to determine who can call whom and for what purpose.

I think conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue.

[SheLion]

This IS bad news. But I signed up with my telephone company to have Caller Rejection. Most telemarketers have blocked numbers. My phone no longer rings for these blocked numbers. Unless they agree to show their name and number.

I am SO thankful I found this feature. It's excellent.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Simple solution. Congress simply expands the authority of the FTC to do it.

[yankeedame]

No, it's like having the door to door salesman use your car to get to your house. We pay for the telephone services, we pay the taxes, and telemarketers get a virtual free ride paying about $40 per phone line for unlimited calling.

And let's not even talking about the growing "junk faxes"- those unwanted faxes on the glories of Disneyworld, weight loss potions, Carvanal cruises, you name it. This blankety-blank things are gobbling up my ink and my paper for stuff I haven't the slightest interest in.

[GOPrincess]

Judges seem out of control these days...

[rattrap]

"Black Fax" them back. we have a piece of black construction paper with a very small note on it that says something about not using our fax for marketing purposes. This of course forces their fax machine to use a ton of ink to print a black sheet of paper.

[Martin Tell]

Has anyone slamming the court's decision actually read it? (Be honest.)

No, but I can guess what it is, a lengthy recitation of the authority of the FTC, a quick look at freedom of speech for commercial entities (telemarketers claim a First Amendment right to call), and some conclusory statements about irreparable harm (the standard for grant of a temporary restraining order).

Let's try it another way, through a simple test:

Which of the folowing statments is NOT true regarding the way federal courts interpret the "Right of Privacy" supposedly found in the US Constitution?

(a) Women have an unrestricted right to abort babies

(b) Homosexuals have a right to engage in sodomy

(c) Ordinary citizens have a right to not be bothered by unwanted telephone calls

So, I conclude I have a right to be outraged by this action.

[Billthedrill]

There is one, and only one, thing that will bring telemarketing under control, and that is a systematic boycott on the part of those receiving unwanted calls of the sponsors of those calls. The government won't help, there are too many loopholes for legislation ("well, it doesn't apply to credit card companies, non-profits, charities, etc, etc").

I never really liked the idea much of solving this with legislation for this very reason. Over and above the basic problem of depending on the government for the solution to all our problems is the simple objection that it won't work anyway.

Behind telemarketing (and internet spam, incidentally) is the idea that one only needs to get a very tiny percentage of positive replies for the thing to pay for itself, and that there really isn't much negative that hasn't already paid for itself - the receiver has, once the call is picked up, paid for half of the transaction whether they will or nil; in the case if internet spam it's 100%. No negative consequences means no behavior change.

Dumping on the poor stupid sod on the other end of the line won't really accomplish much - he or she is just trying to pay the bills, after all. The sponsors are the key.

[ibheath]

Now THAT is the free market way of inflicting the neccesary pain to be removed from lists. Boat horns work well for telemarketers. -Grin-

[Made In The USA]

I'll never follow why it is perceived that others have a right to call my home without my permission. I'm paying for the damn thing. It should not be perceived that my e-mail address is somehow fair game either.