MSNBC reports that an Oklahoma court threw out the anti-telemarketing ban.
We'll see how the ban fares in federal court. I hope the feds throw it out on
1st amendment grounds.

RSHaas

MSNBC reports that an Oklahoma court threw out the anti-telemarketing ban.
We'll see how the ban fares in federal court. I hope the feds throw it out on
1st amendment grounds.

Agreed! If you don't like telemarketing, Just Say No!

MSNBC reports that an Oklahoma court threw out the anti-telemarketing ban.

We'll see how the ban fares in federal court. I hope the feds throw it out
on
1st amendment grounds.

Agreed! If you don't like telemarketing, Just Say No!

How does one say NO to a phone call during dinner?

How do you make them stop?

Rp

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

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?

RSHaas

On 24 Sep 2003 20:24:22 GMT, (RSHaas) wrote:

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?

"Doesn't the fine actually hit the rich sleazebag who owns the telemarketing
company -- not the poor fish who work for it?" (mikemurray)
==============
Mostly I work for myself, so I'd be the sleazebag. Imagine me... fined
$11,000 for offering someone health insurance.

(RSHaas)

RSHaas wrote:

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?

The ruling merely states that the FTC did not have the
authority to impose the No-Call rule, and implies that
only the FCC would have had such authority. The judge
did not say that such a rule would be unconstitutional.
So if today's ruling fails to get overturned in Federal
Appeals Court, expect to see it reinstated after a quick
reshuffle over at the FCC.

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

Of course, I oppose the ban because I live with a phone in my ear.

Ah, this explains so much.

Rp