Judge makes another idiotic decison (1 Viewer)

Status
Please reply by conversation.

John Corn

Thread Starter
The Coach / Supporter
Supporting Founder
Sep 6, 2003
1,244
18
North Canton, Ohio.
Shortly after Congress overwhelming overturned a decision saying that Congress did not give the FTC/FCC authority to do what Congress specifically told it to do five months ago, another judge now says that voluntarily blocking telemarketing is a violation of free speach (because it interferes with a consumers right to hear what he specifically says he does not want to hear).
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham in Denver said, ``The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice ......
I think juge Notingham should be strapped into a chair and forced to listen to telemarketing for 24/7 till his head explodes

The federal judicary is increasingly out of control, threatening to replace democratic decisions with judical fiat.
 

John Corn

Thread Starter
The Coach / Supporter
Supporting Founder
Sep 6, 2003
1,244
18
North Canton, Ohio.
This is another activist judge overstepping his bounds. Whatever the merits of the "do not call" list, it's a legislative matter, not a judicial one. These judges need to take a civics class and remember that legislators make laws, not judges.

The First Amendment gives the telemarketer the right to say whatever he or she wants. It does not give him/her the right to invade my home to do so.

Do you suppose this judge would presume to tell me what I must watch on TV? After all, if people don't watch a show and it doesn't run anymore, doesn't that interfere with teh free-speech rights of those presenting it, at least by this judge's logic?

Of course, that would have meant that you liberals would have had to watch Alan Keyes's show, :D
 

AllieVi

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 11, 2003
943
0
Temecula, CA (area)
On learning more about Judge Notingham's decision, I'm changing my opinion and believe he's done the right thing.

His decision was based on the reasonable thought that the claimed intent of the do-not-call list is to prevent unsolicited calls, but some groups have been excluded from the restriction. It's a good point. When sitting at the dinner table, I'm not less annoyed by a call from a political organization, pollster, religious or other group than I am by a direct marketer. Why am I suspicious that over time marketers will find a way to use the current loopholes to their advantage...

Since the list is very popular, the ground rules may have to be changed to include ALL unsolicited calls - a good thing. Another reasonable option would be to allow us to specify which organizations we would authorize to contact us. Those who actually want to be allow calls from certain groups could authorize them.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top