The "Do Not Call List"

  • Thread starter milefile
  • 19 comments
  • 739 views
10,832
I agree with the federal judge's overturning of the "do not call list", even though I signed up for it. The list exempts charities and non-profit organizations, singling out any organization that is trying to make a profit. The list's logic goes like this:

charity = good (or, worthy of protection)

profit = bad (or, not worthy of protection)

The court's judgement that the list unconstitutionally limits speech is valid. The assumption that speech which generates profit is unworthy of constitutional protection is wrong. Charities and non-profits should also be bound to the list. Until they are the list is unconstitutional and should not go into effect.

The fact that congress, and even Bush (with suspicious expeditiousness), have come out in favor of the list only proves that our leaders are all-to-willing to pander to misguided popular sentiment in the face of clear cut constitutional logic. U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin's mob ideal, shared by many in Washington, "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong", is a sad commentary. Yes they can! This list is a pitiful example of mob-rule at the highest level, endorsed by our president and representative government. In our economy's current state, it is inexcuseable that our nation's leaders would exploit a minor and common inconvenience, ignoring consequences as disasterous as the loss of two million jobs.

The fact of the matter is that telemarketing works. If it didn't it wouldn't be growing like it is. If Americans want telemarketers to stop calling they should try not buying things from them before they go crying to the government for something they should be doing for themselves.
 
I agree. The do not call list IS bad now that I think about it. I didn't even really give it a second thought when it was first out and considered signing up for it. Now that it's under debate, it seems so clear that I should have questioned it in the first place. I'm upset that the white house is backing it.
 
I agree with you milefile.

Telemarketers are rude and troublesome, but they are afforded the same rights that we are.

Bush seems to have realized that he was in a win-win situation. He knew that in it's current form, the list was wrong. He knew that is would get shot down. So he signs it anyways, making him look like the good guy. The judge has a solid ground to stand on so he's safe. Basically, everyone comes out smelling like roses.

I'm upset that the FTC tried to weasel a way through it. They were pandering to the masses and stepping on the people that pay the bills. Disgusting.

Then again, isn't that the way this country was built? Let middle american foot the bill, the rich get richer, and the poor/low income get handouts. I wish I didn't have to work so hard to make ends meet. Too bad I can't get a handout.

I'm waiting to see the telemarketers sue the FTC for infringing their rights.

The Do not call list is an all or nothing list. Either every caller is on it, or no callers are on it.
 
Then again, isn't that the way this country was built? Let middle american foot the bill, the rich get richer, and the poor/low income get handouts. I wish I didn't have to work so hard to make ends meet. Too bad I can't get a handout.

Everyone is a victim. I am probably classified as middle middle class.

This country was built by the rich getting richer. They also happen to be the people that foot the bill.
 
I didn't fall for it. I knew this was a scam from the start. If I gave my name and telephone number to people I don't want to call me, and if they fight for the right to call me, and I knew they would, they would have my name and telephone number to call me, now wouldn't they?

This has been nothing but a scam to get names and phone numbers.
 
Telemarketers calling my house get met with a barrage of insults, foul language, and threats.

Why just this morning I was trying to sleep, and someone calls "Hello sir, does your vehicle have any chips, dings, or scratches in the window?". I respond with "No, it sure doesn't, and if it gets any, I'm going to hunt you down and put some chips, dings, or scratches in ya' ass"

But anyway, I don't care either way. If the list works, they don't call. If it doesn't, I have a way to take out my frustrations.
 
Commercial speech can be restricted. This is no different than restricting tobacco advertisements on TV, except that's even more restrictive than the do-not-call list.
 
I feel equally violated whether a company, charity, or politcal office calls me. They all should stop. Why do it half-assed?

And Doug's post affirms this quote from my opening post:

charity = good (or, worthy of protection)

profit = bad (or, not worthy of protection)
 
My biggest issue with Tele-Marketers is that no matter when I sit down to eat, go to "pinch a loaf", get in the shower, try to get laid in the middle of the day...The damn phone rings, and it's a tele marketer.
In my line of work the phone rings often enough with folks trying to find replacement nurses or just some extra help. I feel obligated to answer the phone. As I get older and wiser I'll look at the Caller ID and only answer to numbers I know.
 
Originally posted by milefile
The court's judgement that the list unconstitutionally limits speech is valid.
It's only unconstitutional in that charities are exempted and businesses aren't. It's not at all unconstitutional in and of itself.

The constitution only guarantees that you have an outlet for free speech. It does not guarantee that you will have access to a specific outlet. No one is stopping companies from advertising at all; they are merely stopping one particular form of advertising. Each and every company that uses tlephone advertising is left free to post billboards, buy print ads, hire skywriters, etc.
 
Originally posted by milefile
I feel equally violated whether a company, charity, or politcal office calls me. They all should stop. Why do it half-assed?

And Doug's post affirms this quote from my opening post:

charity = good (or, worthy of protection)

profit = bad (or, not worthy of protection)

Commerical speech includes charities. If somebody's getting paid, I don't want it.
 
Originally posted by Gil
My biggest issue with Tele-Marketers is that no matter when I sit down to eat, go to "pinch a loaf", get in the shower, try to get laid in the middle of the day...The damn phone rings, and it's a tele marketer.
In my line of work the phone rings often enough with folks trying to find replacement nurses or just some extra help. I feel obligated to answer the phone. As I get older and wiser I'll look at the Caller ID and only answer to numbers I know.

:lol: I agree. They always call at the worse time. This quotes going in my sig.

Anyways...

Yeah my mom signed up for that, she says theyre ALOT less callers. She would have at least mimium 3 a day max 10 on a really bad day.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
It's only unconstitutional in that charities are exempted and businesses aren't. It's not at all unconstitutional in and of itself.

That is exactly my point. A value judgement that people don't even see is made in the law. Everybody rallies around it as "common sense" and "fair", and they are not seeing past the tips of their noses. Profit pays their bills. Either calls are allowed or not. Making distinctions between what kind of calls is a dangerous and popular (socialist) mob mentality which assumes profit and the earning thereof are bad. There is no justification for this beyong an accumulated annoyance over being called. This is a clear cut case of so-called common sense and principle appearing contradictory. It's the governments job to uphold the constitution, not pander to the masses.
 
Either calls are allowed or not.

No. They aren't. Get rid of them entirely.

Want to save the whales? Go drive your Prius off a pier. Want me to switch to your long distance service? Eat your face off and feed it to your 400-pound bengal tiger. I make no distinction.
 
I enjoy telemarketing calls really, i mess with them and they usually end up hanging up not me. I dont receive many though and im sure they get annoying.
 
I guess I should've known... but if you say you don't agree with the list, even after describing and explaining why it is unconstitutional as it stands, most people will get really pissed and you'll end up in an argument with someone who refuses to be rational and objective, even just for argument's sake. It's pretty funny.
 
most people will get really pissed and you'll end up in an argument with someone who refuses to be rational and objective

People confuse what is apparently good for them with what is right for society. The response is always... but Telemarketers are really irritating - yea... so are coupons on my door knob, so is the music in other people's cars, so are commercials on your television, so is having to pay for anything. Doesn't mean you get to have a law protecting you from it. Annoying isn't exactly a reason to make something illegal.
 
Well, since the National "Do Not Call list" is unconstitutional, what does that say about Indiana's "Do Not Call List"? No one has ever complained about the state's version (To my knowledge. I could very well be wrong).
 
Back