Maybe, maybe not. There is another federal case coming up in Denver.
Sooner or later the ban will come under 1st amendment scrutiny.
Over many years and many cases the Supreme Court has steadfastly ruled
that
truthfull and non-misleading commercial speech is the same as any other
speech
and therefore has 1st amendment protection.

RSHaas


Let's hope the judges decide that your ability to exercise your first amendment
right does not extend to intruding into my ear.
Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch?

Richard Peterson

"Fifiela" wrote in message
...
How does one say NO to a phone call during dinner?

1. Don't answer phone
2. Screen calls
3. Hang up if telemarketer
4. Don't buy anything

If you do answer, ask them to take you off the calling list.

StanB

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...

It was a federal case in Oklahoma. He ruled the FTC overstepped its
authority. There is another federal case coming up in Denver.
The ban may be reworked in some fashion and reappear in a different
form.
Of course, I oppose the ban because I live with a phone in my ear. I
don't
want to pay $11,000 just because I called some snot-nosed yuppie *******
and
his snotty bitch of a wife. Most telemarketers I've known work these
jobs part
time to make ends meet.
What kind of asshole of a human being would actually initiate a
$11,000 fine
that would destroy a family of modest circumstances.. over a mere
commercial
phone call?

Doesn't the fine actually hit the rich sleazebag who owns the
telemarketing company -- not the poor fish who work for it?

You would think. We used to do business to business telemarketing and our
dialers were on the payroll. We also were required to keep a do-not-call
list.

StanB

If you do answer, ask them to take you off the calling list.

The biggest problem these days is almost no one removes you when you politely
ask- this is why things like the do-not-call list had to be created.

John Fernandez

"Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch? (Richard
Peterson)
==============
You certainly have the right to hang up, block calls, use available
technology to screen or divert calls, and so on.
The question is.. can you enlist the aid of the government to prevent me
from calling? One problem I see in the telemarketing ban is that it focuses on
one form of commercial speech. You turn on the TV and commercials come into
your home using your personal TV and your electric power. So ban that, huh?
That means the networks have to send you only programming but not the
commercials because you are a spoiled brat that can't be troubled. And the
newspapers. You don't like all the ads. Ban them, too. Your edition of the
newspaper much come scrubbed clean of ads. All that so you can live in an open
capitalist society that is trimmed in such a way that it fits your personal
perfect way.. regardless of the consequences beyond your comfort zone.
The smart thing the telemarketers should do is ignore the ban.. set off 60
million complaints that would flood the court system and tie it up for decades
as it tried to process those cases.

RSHaas

Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch?

1. Don't answer
2. Screen calls
3. Hang up
4. Don't buy

"The biggest problem these days is almost no one removes you when you politely
ask- this is why things like the do-not-call list had to be created. (John
Fernandez)
================
Florida was the first state to have a state run "no phone solicitation list."
It is run by the Department of Agriculture with a staff of only 5 or 6 people.
The number of cases they've actually prosecuted is tiny.

RSHaas

The local paper in Sarasota ran an editorial supporting the ban. Same paper
uses telemarketing to solicit subscriptions around town. Everyone wants his
world to be the most perfect world.

RSHaas

Several large brokerage firms and big real estate outfits in downtown
Sarasota have "no soliciting" signs on their doors. Yet their brokers and
agents spend all day on the phone cold calling Longboat Key trying to drum up
business.

RSHaas

On 25 Sep 2003 00:09:20 GMT, (RSHaas) wrote:

"Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch? (Richard
Peterson)
==============

One problem I see in the telemarketing ban is that it focuses on
one form of commercial speech. You turn on the TV and commercials come into
your home using your personal TV and your electric power. So ban that, huh?
That means the networks have to send you only programming but not the
commercials because you are a spoiled brat that can't be troubled. And the
newspapers. You don't like all the ads. Ban them, too. Your edition of the
newspaper much come scrubbed clean of ads.

In return, I get something I like from radio,TV and the newspapers.
What am I getting from you ? What do you and your ilk offer in
trade?

All that so you can live in an open
capitalist society that is trimmed in such a way that it fits your personal
perfect way.. regardless of the consequences beyond your comfort zone.

Do you have a right to come to my front door if I have a sign on the
gate saying "No Peddlers or Agents" ?

The smart thing the telemarketers should do is ignore the ban.. set off 60
million complaints that would flood the court system and tie it up for decades
as it tried to process those cases.

The smart thing would be to let individuals set a rate for listening
to a telemarketing pitch, electronically publish that rate and make it
available to telemarketers. Then, when a call is made, the fee for
listening could automatically be deducted from the marketeer's credit
card. Sound fair? Wouldn't be breaking any new ground
technologically.