2nd Judge Blocks "Do Not Call" List -- Please Let Him Know He's Wrong

[MRPLUTO]

His name is Judge Edward Nottingham of Denver.  His office number is:   303/844-5018, and press 5.  I called and left a message telling him that commercial speech is not protected under the first amendment, and that he should know that.  The FTC does not have to treat all telemarketers equally.  If it wants to allow charities to continue cold-calling, it may.  The judge is a dunce.

MRPLUTO  

[Sandman]

MrPluto... I just want to say that, in my most humble opinon, you are a great American, sir.

[AKKarma]

I have always suspected that telemarketers were in league with The Devil:


October 13, 1994

In Denver, Colorado, U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruled that imprisoned kidnaper Robert James Howard should be allowed to practice certain rituals associated with his religion of Satanism, and that the prison should perhaps furnish Howard with a robe and incense.

One of the rituals was a "destruction ritual," during which, according to Howard, he would visualize the death of an enemy and then convince himself, he would hope, not to carry out the killing.

sources: Washington Times, Rocky Mountain News

[Fatty]

Actually I would prefer non-profits, politicians, etc be included on the list as well anyway.  Then it might be worth buying on to.

[MRPLUTO]

Karma--

Very funny...good research!

*******

Fatty--

I, too, wish that the other groups were included in the list.  But the point is that commercial speech isn't protected like political speech.  It can be regulated.  For example, while roadside billboards are legal, they're not legal everywhere and there are restrictions on how distracting they can be.  It is Constitutional to allow some groups to call and others not to; that may not be fair, but it is legal.

*******

Sandman--

Well thank you very much.  I have great admiration for the US Constitution and these judges don't seem to have read it carefully, in my opinion.

MRPLUTO

[DmdNexus]

Is it my right of free speach to call up judge Edward Nottingham of Denver and offer to sodomize him for $19.95?

However, for a limited time only, I'm running a special and not only will I Sodomize him, but also his familly... wait let's not stop there! I'll sodomize his pets too.

What a fantastic service! Right over the phone too!

No wait there's more!

If he acts now to this limited special offer, that he can only get over the phone through my proprietary telemarketing services, I'll even include a used set of ginzu knifes with genuine plastic-steel(tm) handles, that won't dull, break, or rust for the life time of the owner or until he is fully sodomized.

There is no other offer like this. NO other service can compare!

Wait there's more!

Not only will I sodomize him, his familly, and pets.
I'll also, get this, sodomize any stuffed animals that are in his house.

Wait! It gets even better.

For a limited time only.. yes... this is a deal of a life time...this is the telemarketing deal of the century.

I'll sodomize every monkey in his familly tree - for FREE!

[Mini D]

Nexus... I might be going out on a limb in suggesting it might be illegal to offer (even in jest) to commit acts of violence against a federal judge and his familly.  It would be doing HTC a service to remove that "joke".

MiniD

[miko2d]

MRPLUTO: ...that commercial speech is not protected under the first amendment

 I distinctly remember that The First Amendment does not contain any qualification on what kind of speech is protected.

The FTC does not have to treat all telemarketers equally.

 And the purpose of the Constitution is exactly to deny FTC or any government agency or even Congress itself the right to decide how to treat people with respect to their Fredom of Speech.

 What we need is a Telemarketers Constituitional Amendment.

 miko

[Eagler]

if its a hit on free speech, how can FL offer the same type of list for a fee?

don't think they were thinking about telemarketers when they drafted The First Amendment

[DmdNexus]

Any one with common sense and a half lit bulb in the attic would see my statements as satire.

And since when is sodomy an act of violence?
Between two consenting adults it's an act of love.

A recent Supreme court ruling made laws banning sodomy unconstitutional.

Besides... it was an offer of service not a threat.
Formed as a question asking if offering such a service is protected by free speach.

The same protection of free speach the telemarketing lobby is trying to foist upon the American public.

[Mini D]

Argue semantics all you want nexus.  It is threatning and this is not your house.

MiniD

[miko2d]

Eagler: don't think they were thinking about telemarketers when they drafted The First Amendment

 It's irrelevant what you think. It's irrelevant what the government thinks. It's irrelevant what the Congress thinks. We just do what the Constitution says or amend it.

 BTW, you would be surprised how foresightfull they were and they certainly were familiar with direct marketing.

 miko

[DmdNexus]

Pornography is restricted speach.

Communities are allowed to ban porno from local libraries, as well as, put restrictions on where pornographers are allowed to advertise.

Let's not forget that Congress has put restrictiosn on tabacoo and alchohol ads and this has been upheld by the Supreme court as constitution.

The telemarketing speach is not banned, it is just restricted in how it reaches its audience.

In this case, the audience of 50 million Americans have said, they do not want commercial solicitation in their homes.

If I were a businessman (which I am) and someone told me they didn't want to buy my products, why would I waste my time soliciting to them. It's a no banner... I wouldn't.

The problem here is that some telelmarketers are unscrupulous... they have for years circumvented laws by inventing tricks suchs as computer dialers, boiler rooms, charge backs, high pressure sales... they prey upon the elderly and the naive.... they don't want their audience restricted because they know out of that 50 million there is about 1% that they can trick into selling something bogus.... and it's worth their lobbying money and effort to prevent any restrictions.

It's about the right to defraud... not the right to free speach.

50 million Americans have a right to not hear their speach. I say we let them have that right to not be harassed by speach they do not want to hear.

Could you imagine if this were religion and some one had the right to force you to listen to a religious service you did not want to hear.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

They have a right to free speech, I have the right to deny them the ability to speak freely to me.

This DNC list does just that.

Your freedoms end where the other guy's begins.
-SW

[miko2d]

DmdNexus: Pornography is restricted speach.

 So? Quite possibly it is unconstututionally restricted.

Communities are allowed to ban porno from local libraries, as well as, put restrictions on where pornographers are allowed to advertise.

 True. Households, communities, states - can ban whatever want. The Federal Constitution only restricts powers of teh federal Government.

Let's not forget that Congress has put restrictiosn on tabacoo and alchohol ads and this has been upheld by the Supreme court as constitution.

 So was slavery, segregation, etc..

In this case, the audience of 50 million Americans have said, they do not want commercial solicitation in their homes.

 That is not subject to vote - even majority vote, if it contradicts the Constitution.

 Constitution can be amended which is a hassle, but disregarding it altogether in favor of expendiency will cause more problems.

Could you imagine if this were religion and some one had the right to force you to listen to a religious service you did not want to hear.

 If a private person forces one to do anything, it is assault and kidnapping. Only the government is allowed to force people.
 Telemarketers are a nusanse but they do not force anyone. There are ways to deal with them compatible with the laws.

 miko