I didn't realize till today that the list does not
restrict calls from political organizations or so-called
charities. Hell, most of the calls I get are probably from
those sleazy "charities" (e.g. "support our firemen," "help our
cops get bullet-proof vests," "help the <insert> children who
need our help," blah blah blah). I say "probably get" because
I stopped answering my phone a couple of years ago. I let
the answering machine screen my calls at home.

From todays's NY Times:

"The second ruling, issued today by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of
Federal District Court in Denver, threw a more effective obstacle in
the way of the list on the ground that it discriminates against
for-profit businesses; the registry program still allows political and
charitable solicitation calls to be made. Judge Nottingham ruled that
by exempting the nonprofit solicitors from the registry, the F.T.C.
"has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban
from his home." "

--
Oracle

OracleofBugtussle wrote:
I didn't realize till today that the list does not restrict calls from political organizations or so-called charities. Hell, most of the calls I get are probably from those sleazy "charities" (e.g. "support our firemen," "help our cops get bullet-proof vests," "help the <insert> children who need our help," blah blah blah). I say "probably get" because I stopped answering my phone a couple of years ago. I let the answering machine screen my calls at home. From todays's NY Times: "The second ruling, issued today by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of Federal District Court in Denver, threw a more effective obstacle in the way of the list on the ground that it discriminates against for-profit businesses; the registry program still allows political and charitable solicitation calls to be made. Judge Nottingham ruled that by exempting the nonprofit solicitors from the registry, the F.T.C. "has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home." "

Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me
that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, but
on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :)

Seriously, I would think that the problem could be solved by giving
those who wish to sign up for the do-not-call list the right to designate
whether they will accept calls from commercial, charitable, or political
solicitors, and make access to the registry free for all.

> Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, but on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :)

No kidding, who regulates these judges? Where do I file a complaint?

Does he really think that 51 million Americans, Congress, the Senate, (and
hopefully soon the President once he signs the bill) are wrong in the belief
that we should have the ability to say enough is enough, no more
solicitations...

"The second ruling, issued today by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of Federal District Court in Denver, threw a more effective obstacle in the way of the list on the ground that it discriminates against for-profit businesses; the registry program still allows political and charitable solicitation calls to be made. Judge Nottingham ruled that by exempting the nonprofit solicitors from the registry, the F.T.C. "has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home." "

That certainly sounds like a more logical reason to block it, but I,
like 50 million others hope it is allowed to go through.
I never did buy the free speech reason though. IANAL so maybe the ones
here could explain to me where the first amendment gaurantees not only
speech, but an audience.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to methat he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, buton his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :)

Superpages.com shows an Edward _U_ Nottingham, but no Edward _W_
Nottingham.
http://directory.superpages.com/people.jsp?SRC=
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in message news:<1064600835.687641@irys.nyx.net>... Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to methat he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, buton his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :) Superpages.com shows an Edward _U_ Nottingham, but no Edward _W_ Nottingham. http://directory.superpages.com/people.jsp?SRC=

the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number.
the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let
the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first
amendment right to be heard

The Post this morning quoted "Greg Langham" as the clerk of
Nottingham's court. There was a Greg Langham listed as recently as
last winter as clerk of the 18th Judicial District (local court in
Colorado covering a couple of counties near Denver) who lives and has
a listed phone number on Geddes Ave in Littleton. I'm loathe to list
it without being sure it is the same person. But he might know a home
number for Nottingham and respond to a FOIA request for same.

In article <30e6729c.0309280557.4ac2602d@posting.google.com>,
socks <agent01413@my-deja.com> wrote:
...the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number.the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let
...Nottingham's court. There was a Greg Langham listed as recently as


Talk about fighing abuse with abuse! How can you guys soil yourselves
with such games?

Why shouldn't the judge or his clerk have tried to get their numbers
on the DNC list? Why do you require that the judge be corrupt and
dishonest? It is perfectly reasonable to want to use the DNC. If
you also happen to be a judge and you are given a DNC case, should
you decide based on your personal convenience?

As for reclusing himself, given the popularity of the DNC, that
would be silly. Would you require judges who drive to recluse
themselves from any case that involves cars or roads? Besides, a
better demand that he recluse himself could have been made if he
had *not* signed up for the DNC.


Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com

"Vernon Schryver" <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote in message
news:bl6t6u$hig$1@calcite.rhyolite.com...
Talk about fighing abuse with abuse! How can you guys soil yourselves with such games?

Because it gets in the news and makes a point that needs to be made. The
only reason the NDNCL has made it this far is because the politicians had
their noses rubbed in the fact that people *hate* telemarketing, now it's
time for the another branch of government, the judicial, to get the same
message.

In article <izGdb.162333$3o3.11659659@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in misc.consumers, DGDevin
<dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:Because it gets in the news and makes a point that needs to be made. Theonly reason the NDNCL has made it this far is because the politicians hadtheir noses rubbed in the fact that people *hate* telemarketing, now it'stime for the another branch of government, the judicial, to get the samemessage.

You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of
American government, the rule of law.

The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to
the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not
physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning
crosses on a judge's lawn.

I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree
with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our
rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to
deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is
to appeal it to the higher court.

Which has been done.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e12bd6119c445898b481@news.odyssey.net.. . In article <izGdb.162333$3o3.11659659@bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in misc.consumers, DGDevin <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:Because it gets in the news and makes a point that needs to be made. Theonly reason the NDNCL has made it this far is because the politicians hadtheir noses rubbed in the fact that people *hate* telemarketing, now it'stime for the another branch of government, the judicial, to get the samemessage. You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn.

Only if the judge said it was perfectly legal to burn crosses on people's
lawns.
This judge says it is legal for people to call unsolicited. So what's the
problem?

agent01413@my-deja.com (socks) wrote in message news:<30e6729c.0309280557.4ac2602d@posting.google.com>... bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in message news:<1064600835.687641@irys.nyx.net>... Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to methat he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, buton his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :) Superpages.com shows an Edward _U_ Nottingham, but no Edward _W_ Nottingham. http://directory.superpages.com/people.jsp?SRC= the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard The Post this morning quoted "Greg Langham" as the clerk of Nottingham's court. There was a Greg Langham listed as recently as last winter as clerk of the 18th Judicial District (local court in Colorado covering a couple of counties near Denver) who lives and has a listed phone number on Geddes Ave in Littleton. I'm loathe to list it without being sure it is the same person. But he might know a home number for Nottingham and respond to a FOIA request for same.

by the simple expedient of calling and asking, I can confirm that this
is in fact the home number of his clerk.


The equal protection clause of the constitution says that we're all
equal.
Ought his court clerk, Greg Langham, whose home phone number is
303-979-
6328, be any more deserving of privacy protections for his phone
number
than I am for my home phone number? If telemarketers can harass me at
home, should Nottingham's staffers somehow be exempt?

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e12bd6119c445898b481@news.odyssey.net.. .
You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law.

And you betray a staggering misunderstanding of how the law *really* works.
The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn.

Judges are not and cannot be some alien species beamed down from a passing
starship, they are members of this society too, and thus are never the
fictional neutral creatures we pretend they are. That's why some decades
back judges began ignoring laws that said some kid caught with a joint in
his pocket outside a rock concert was going to prison for years, and
eventually the legislature caught up with public opinion (as reflected by
the judges) and reduced the severity of sentences for a crime society no
longer regarded so seriously. Judges make decisions based on their personal
or religious or political biases all the time, it is absurd to pretend
otherwise.
I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is to appeal it to the higher court.

Protest is part of the package, whether it's marching down Main St. carrying
signs or sitting on the sidewalk in front of a segregated school or clogging
a court's phone lines so a sleepy judge realizes how out of step he is with
the rest of society. There was no "intimidation" here, no crosses burned on
anyone's lawn, good grief, what dramatic language, it was just an invitation
to wake up and smell the coffee.

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:5TLdb.156903$0v4.11753149@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Judges make decisions based on their personal or religious or political biases all the time, it is absurd to pretend otherwise.

Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK. I'm sure you'll find
the judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and if
judges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help in
his next election.
I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is to appeal it to the higher court. Protest is part of the package, whether it's marching down Main St.
carrying signs or sitting on the sidewalk in front of a segregated school or
clogging a court's phone lines so a sleepy judge realizes how out of step he is
with the rest of society.

By taking his case directly to local judges in the form of a protest a
friend of mine, whose son was injured by a drunk driver, has gotten judges
to impose far stricter bond requirements for drunk drivers involved in
accidents. No court appeals, no need to get laws passed.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"socks" <agent01413@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:30e6729c.0309281710.2c963f3b@posting.google.c om... agent01413@my-deja.com (socks) wrote in message
news:<30e6729c.0309280557.4ac2602d@posting.google.com>... bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote in message
news:<1064600835.687641@irys.nyx.net>... Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me >that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone,
but >on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message.
:) Superpages.com shows an Edward _U_ Nottingham, but no Edward _W_ Nottingham. http://directory.superpages.com/people.jsp?SRC= the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard
by the simple expedient of calling and asking, I can confirm that this is in fact the home number of his clerk. The equal protection clause of the constitution says that we're all equal. Ought his court clerk, Greg Langham, whose home phone number is 303-979- 6328, be any more deserving of privacy protections for his phone number than I am for my home phone number? If telemarketers can harass me at home, should Nottingham's staffers somehow be exempt?

And what gives you the right to solict abuse of this government employee? He
is _NOT_ the judge
he was _NOT_ involved in the ruling in any manner other than to distribute
the decision of the Judge.

You are a friggin drongo, and what you are attempting to do will only have
negative repercussions on
spam fighting.

darn. Now I have serious doubts about the validity of your entire argument.

In article <d1CdnbMDD_7pEOqiU-KYiQ@comcast.com> in misc.consumers,
McWebber <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:I'm sure you'll findthe judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and ifjudges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help inhis next election.

Federal judges are not elected -- and the rule could hardly be
different "there" from anywhere else in the country.

It's scary that your vote counts the same as mine.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

Stan Brown wrote: You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn.

Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is a
foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial notice
presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take
cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion.

I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game. The home
team got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called, penalty,
about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the ground,
broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh.

There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game.
I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is to appeal it to the higher court.

On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a
stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling,
the judge may be a little less arrogant.

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e1706317331a7d98b487@news.odyssey.net.. . In article <d1CdnbMDD_7pEOqiU-KYiQ@comcast.com> in misc.consumers, McWebber <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:I'm sure you'll findthe judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and ifjudges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help inhis next election. Federal judges are not elected -- and the rule could hardly be different "there" from anywhere else in the country. It's scary that your vote counts the same as mine.
Mate, dont get fooled!
Your vote is exactly twice the value of his when used as directed in Florida
(and possibly everywhere else too) :)
Your vote is also exactly (or approximately?) the same value as itself, and
along with all other equal and more-equal votes
will have an equal (or perhaps more?) say in the election of whatever is the
subject of tha ballot.... I think.... (Do I?), mumble.....

Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: And what gives you the right to solict abuse of this government employee? He is _NOT_ the judge he was _NOT_ involved in the ruling in any manner other than to distribute the decision of the Judge.

He's the judge's toady. Like "spam supporter," only "judge supporter."
You are a friggin drongo, and what you are attempting to do will only have negative repercussions on spam fighting.

What's a "drongo?" Is that good or bad? Do you think abuse of the judge or
his sycophants will affect the judge's decisions? If so, case proved.
darn. Now I have serious doubts about the validity of your entire argument.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:40:09 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>
wrote:
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in messagenews:5TLdb.156903$0v4.11753149@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Judges make decisions based on their personal or religious or political biases all the time, it is absurd to pretend otherwise.Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK. I'm sure you'll findthe judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and ifjudges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help inhis next election.

I dunno about singling out Oklahoma. Don't you think they probably
filed in *EVERY* jurisdiction?


--
Steve M - unspam@houston.rrwax.com
remove wax for reply

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:9FedndHz39BEMOqiXTWJiw@giganews.com... Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: And what gives you the right to solict abuse of this government employee? He is _NOT_ the judge he was _NOT_ involved in the ruling in any manner other than to distribute the decision of the Judge. He's the judge's toady. Like "spam supporter," only "judge supporter."

Bullsh*t! he is a person doing a job that is required, and should you find
yourself thrust into the legal system
you will appreciate that job, as he takes from you your notice of "intent to
defend", etc...

You seem to be likening the judges office to a pinkslip ISP, and the Clerk
as the (Pseudo) abuse desk person.
paradigm mismatch (Unless of course you wish to choose an alternative legal
system? perhaps open slather? or might == right?)

A judge needs to interpret the law and apply it as (he/she) honestly sees it
should be applied. Regardless of their own personal feelings.
In this case it seems that the Judge would rather not have the telemarketers
calling his home just like you, but in the interpretation of the law
he found some things that he honestly consideres to be incompatible with the
constitution, and according to his moral/ethical stand on the matter
(regardless that the outcome was not what he personaly wanted) he made his
decision.
You are a friggin drongo, and what you are attempting to do will only have negative repercussions on spam fighting. What's a "drongo?" Is that good or bad? Do you think abuse of the judge or his sycophants will affect the judge's decisions? If so, case proved.

Drongo == clue-proof.

You surprise me, I wonder about the future of a lot of things since I saw
the clueless calls to abusive action by people that I have had a lot of time
for in the past. I can see that as the abuse on the Judiciary mounts, you
will be getting publicity allright, but what you are suggesting is perhaps a
federal offence.
you can attempts to rationalise it with, "...but I have a right to express
my opinion etc..." but that is crap. Once you step ovet the line in the
pursuit of your goal
however noble, you have sullied the cause, and you are what you hated most.

This latest call to abuse by anti-spammers is going to further divide the
ranks and I can tell you that there are a few anti-spamers that will reject
the cause because of the disrepute fostered by the irresponsible behavior of
some of the loudest elements... I remember a saying about "the loudest drum
is the emptiest...."


darn. Now I have serious doubts about the validity of your entire argument.

"Steve M (remove wax for reply)" <unspam@houston.rrwax.com> wrote in message
news:jebfnv4u52br770d12o4dtb19s898nitvf@4ax.com... On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:40:09 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in messagenews:5TLdb.156903$0v4.11753149@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Judges make decisions based on their personal or religious or political biases all the time, it is absurd to pretend otherwise.Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK. I'm sure you'll findthe judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and ifjudges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help inhis next election. I dunno about singling out Oklahoma. Don't you think they probably filed in *EVERY* jurisdiction?

They don't have to as it's only one federal law. IIRC, some major
telemarketers are in OK.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message
news:bl8c05$8svjo$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de... A judge needs to interpret the law and apply it as (he/she) honestly sees
it should be applied. Regardless of their own personal feelings. In this case it seems that the Judge would rather not have the
telemarketers calling his home just like you, but in the interpretation of the law he found some things that he honestly consideres to be incompatible with
the constitution, and according to his moral/ethical stand on the matter (regardless that the outcome was not what he personaly wanted) he made his decision.

And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many here
will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have never
had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a
charity.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:r9acnUU2Mr8rJeqiU-KYvw@comcast.com... "Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message news:bl8c05$8svjo$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de... A judge needs to interpret the law and apply it as (he/she) honestly
sees it should be applied. Regardless of their own personal feelings. In this case it seems that the Judge would rather not have the telemarketers calling his home just like you, but in the interpretation of the law he found some things that he honestly consideres to be incompatible with the constitution, and according to his moral/ethical stand on the matter (regardless that the outcome was not what he personaly wanted) he made
his decision. And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity.

And that is the heart of the matter as the Judge saw it. I for one think he
made the right decision,
given the broken playing field that exists, which needs to be fixed first.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:42:25 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK. I'm sure you'll findthe judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and ifjudges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help inhis next election. I dunno about singling out Oklahoma. Don't you think they probably filed in *EVERY* jurisdiction?
They don't have to as it's only one federal law. IIRC, some majortelemarketers are in OK.

Maybe, but the ATA filed the case in Denver that's still pending.

http://www.ataconnect.org/ataconnect.org-asp//newsrelease.asp?ID=99

IIRC it was posted here, that the ATA filed another one somewhere in
the eastern US, but was turned down. There may have been more.

--
Steve M - unspam@houston.rrwax.com
remove wax for reply

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com...
On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling, the judge may be a little less arrogant.

Dude, we're trying to build a case that sending a goofball judge a few
relatively harmless clues is not abusive, and you're not helping.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:d1CdnbMDD_7pEOqiU-KYiQ@comcast.com...
Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK. I'm sure you'll find the judge belongs to the same country club as some telemarketer, and if judges are elected there, some telemarketer helped or promised to help in his next election.

Well it certainly wouldn't be a huge surprise to learn that they shopped
around for a judge inclined to rule their way, that's not exactly a new
technique.
By taking his case directly to local judges in the form of a protest a friend of mine, whose son was injured by a drunk driver, has gotten judges to impose far stricter bond requirements for drunk drivers involved in accidents. No court appeals, no need to get laws passed.

Exactly, judges are not religious icons, kept in glass cases so the smells
and noises of society don't upset them, when they make especially idiotic
rulings they should expect to have soup spilled on them in their favorite
restaurant by disapproving waiters.

There are no bullet holes in this judge's windows, no crosses burned on his
front lawn (good grief) but maybe now he gets the point that "freedom of
speech" doesn't mean blasting unwanted phone calls into someone's home or
business, freedom of speech is about political and religious expression, not
selling vacation cruises on the S.S. Boca Raton.

"Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message
news:bl8c05$8svjo$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de...
This latest call to abuse by anti-spammers is going to further divide the ranks and I can tell you that there are a few anti-spamers that will
reject the cause because of the disrepute fostered by the irresponsible behavior
of some of the loudest elements... I remember a saying about "the loudest
drum is the emptiest...."

Wake up and smell the cat food, it's already gone way beyond sending polite
notes asking folks not to spam, please, if it wouldn't be too much trouble,
oh thanks awfully. The spammers are fighting dirty, the ISPs will go with
whoever makes them the most money, and the politicians and judges can be
swayed only by noisy public pressure. This judge has made an absurd ruling
that if allowed to stand would make your telephone even more of an annoyance
rather than a useful tool. He needs to understand that the law exists to
serve the people, and the people hate telemarketing, so he better not stand
the law on its head to protect a non-existent "right" claimed by an industry
that routinely ignores laws it finds inconvenient.

As for anti-spammers "rejecting the cause" because a handful of folks go a
little too far at times, puhlease, that's right up there with "collateral
damage" as an excuse of spam apologists. If you'd bail on the anti-spam
movement at this point because of this, you were never much of an
anti-spammer to begin with.

On 2003-09-29, McWebber <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote: "Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message news:bl8c05$8svjo$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de... A judge needs to interpret the law and apply it as (he/she) honestly sees it should be applied. Regardless of their own personal feelings. In this case it seems that the Judge would rather not have the telemarketers calling his home just like you, but in the interpretation of the law he found some things that he honestly consideres to be incompatible with the constitution, and according to his moral/ethical stand on the matter (regardless that the outcome was not what he personaly wanted) he made his decision. And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity.

Um, the charity thing is the "bone" the politicians were throwing. The
congress critters could care less about charities - really. This is ALL
about them wanting the right to call you up and ask for a campaign /
party contribution. Unless this is overturned in the supreme court, say
"bye bye DNC list" 'cause it will NEVER EVER be modified to include ALL
unsolicited calls.

Frankly, you can solve this with technology. I put in a phone system
that requires callers to "press 5 to talk to" me as well as telling
telemarketers that their calls are not wanted. It's a wee bit more
trouble for family / friends to call me, but when they find out that
TM calls have gone from several a day to zero in the past year, they all
want one. Frankly, I wish the unit were smarter and white-listed the
caller-id info to bypass the check, but it can't. It's just a matter of
time though.

McWebber wrote:
And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity.
McWebber wrote:
And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity.

While the FTC DNC rules exempt charities, they are now required to honor
the Telephone Sales Rule.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm#charity

Telefunders are prohibited from:
* making a false or misleading statement to induce a charitable
contribution.
* making any of several specific prohibited misrepresentations.
* engaging in credit card laundering.
* engaging in acts defined as abusive under the TSR, such as calling
before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., disclosing or receiving consumers’
unencrypted account information, and denying or interfering with a
consumer’s right to be placed on a Do Not Call list.

As for the legitimacy of charity solicitations, it varies widely. Both
NY and Kentucky require professional solicitors to report the results of
their various campaigns. You can view the most recent results at:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/charities/pennies02/penintro.html
http://www.law.state.ky.us/cp/active.htm

In NY, the lowest two tiers, (those where the charity received from
0-19% of the money raised), accounted for 25% of the total number of
campaigns. The amount of money raised in this grouping was
$70,351,111.82, of which the charities received $8,357,622.53, resulting
in "operating expenses" of $61,993,489.29. The total percentage of
money that the charities received in all the campaigns was 31.9%.

In Kentucky, one company, Facter Direct, reported 19 campaigns for such
organizations as the ASPCA, the Heritage Foundation and Planned
Parenthood and in every single one the solicitor retained 99% of the
money raised.

In article <nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com>, nospam@bisusa.com
says... Stan Brown wrote: You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn. Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is a foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial notice presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion. I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game. The home team got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called, penalty, about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the ground, broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh. There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game.


I read a (non-fictional) story about hotly contested street security.
The security officers got paid by five out of six shops. They were very
upset that the sixth shop would not pay them so the stormed the shop,
beat up the shopkeeper, broke all the windows, and set fire to the
merchandise.

There were no more shops not paying for security after that.
I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is to appeal it to the higher court. On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling, the judge may be a little less arrogant.

And if a shop keeper has to confront the possibility of getting beaten
and possibly killed he'll likely be a little less arrogant when it comes
time to pay for security.

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
[snip]I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game. The hometeam got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called, penalty,about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the ground,broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh.There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game.

You bet it was fictional. If it happened in RL, the league would have
penalized the home team with *at least* loss of that game. Teams have
been penalized for much less, e.g. overexuberant fans repeatedly
getting onto the field during the game.

[snip]On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of astab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling,the judge may be a little less arrogant.

Boy, do I ever *not* want to live in your world. I think the judge
was dead wrong on this one, but I don't want judges to decide cases
based on whether they may be physically attacked for their decisions.

A judge -- or anybody else making decisions about anybody else's life
-- should be able to endure verbal abuse. If people write nasty
letters about him to the local paper, that's just part of life.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

And that's why it should be OK for you (or millions of "you") to call
the judge, either at his chambers or at his home (assuming we can find
his home phone). That is a _person_to_person_ contact, exactly what
the phone system was created for. Each of us has the right to express
our opinion, once. If you call him repeatedly, that's harrassment.
If you use abusive language, that _might_ be harrassment and in any
case won't help change his mind. Threats are right out. But a calm,
rational statement of why you think he was wrong is well within our
rights as US citizens and might actually persuade him to change his
ruling.

Your approach -- a stab wound in the thigh -- is like the old method
of "concerned white citizens" letting black families know what they
thought of having a black move into "their" neighborhood, with a nice
cheerful light on the lawn (burning cross) and/or some bullets through
their windows.

No thank you.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

socks wrote:

the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard

More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers
have it also.

"Walt Reed" <news903@remove.linuxguy.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbng1k0.vin.news903@gw.home.hubinternet.co m... On 2003-09-29, McWebber <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote: "Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message news:bl8c05$8svjo$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de... A judge needs to interpret the law and apply it as (he/she) honestly
sees it should be applied. Regardless of their own personal feelings. In this case it seems that the Judge would rather not have the telemarketers calling his home just like you, but in the interpretation of the law he found some things that he honestly consideres to be incompatible
with the constitution, and according to his moral/ethical stand on the matter (regardless that the outcome was not what he personaly wanted) he made
his decision. And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many
here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have
never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity. Um, the charity thing is the "bone" the politicians were throwing. The congress critters could care less about charities - really. This is ALL about them wanting the right to call you up and ask for a campaign / party contribution. Unless this is overturned in the supreme court, say "bye bye DNC list" 'cause it will NEVER EVER be modified to include ALL unsolicited calls.

No, political calls had nothing to do with this. No matter which way this
plays out there will be no regulation preventing people from calling asking
for your vote or any non-commercial call. Solicitations for donations may be
banned under the DNC list when it's all played out, but you'll just get
calls asking for your "support" without directly asking for donations. The
government will not be able to ban such speech.
Frankly, you can solve this with technology. I put in a phone system that requires callers to "press 5 to talk to" me as well as telling telemarketers that their calls are not wanted. It's a wee bit more trouble for family / friends to call me, but when they find out that TM calls have gone from several a day to zero in the past year, they all want one.

I got around that by simply having my phone number listed with no mailing
address. Since the reverse directories created from TPC directory doesn't
have my address, they apparently don't bother me. There's no charge for not
printing your mailing address. I get very few telemarketing calls.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Buster" <nospam@invalid.email> wrote in message
news:3F782DC6.3E7DCD05@invalid.email... McWebber wrote: And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many
here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have
never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity. McWebber wrote: And if charities lose their exemption from the DNC list I doubt many
here will be crying and will be thanking that judge down the road. I have
never had what I consider to be a legitimate telephone solicitation from a charity.

Hmm, I thought I only said that once.
While the FTC DNC rules exempt charities, they are now required to honor the Telephone Sales Rule.

That doesn't stop any calls.
As for the legitimacy of charity solicitations, it varies widely. Both NY and Kentucky require professional solicitors to report the results of their various campaigns.

That doesn't stop the calls.
In Kentucky, one company, Facter Direct, reported 19 campaigns for such organizations as the ASPCA, the Heritage Foundation and Planned Parenthood and in every single one the solicitor retained 99% of the money raised.

And the calls keep on coming. Hopefully the exemption for charities will be
stricken from the FTC rules.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

Walt Reed <news903@remove.linuxguy.com> writes: Frankly, you can solve this with technology. I put in a phone system that requires callers to "press 5 to talk to" me as well as telling telemarketers that their calls are not wanted.

I've often wondered why there isn't a product on the market that
routes "out of area" and "private" callers to the answering machine.
There are plenty of products that let you take special action on
specific caller-id numbers, but none that I can find that include "out
of area" as one of the values to match on.

OB NANAE: luckily if you run open-source you can make damn sure that
nobody with an unavailable reverse-DNS is going to be able to pester
you with spam. Now if I could only do the same for my phone I'd be
happy.

-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
The From: address is valid. Don't mess with it.

> > the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also.

So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge
interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the
telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave

"Dave C." wrote:
the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also. So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave

No -- you can send them directly to voicemail, just as
he did.

Now, I don't agree with the judge's decision, but I'm willing
to wait for an appeals court ruling before I take direct
action.

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:3XZdb.7897$RW4.1174@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also. So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave

No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government can't
prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they don't
prohibit charities from calling you.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:NPydnXsA5-zRBOWiXTWJiw@comcast.com:
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message news:3XZdb.7897$RW4.1174@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... > the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home > number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the > ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation > of the callers' first amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also. So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government can't prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they don't prohibit charities from calling you.
Which is in clear conflict with existing case law. The judge is a retard.

--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion

Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com

"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94058C12A7192taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government can't prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they don't prohibit charities from calling you. Which is in clear conflict with existing case law. The judge is a retard.

What federal court decisions allow the government to value one type of
solicitation for money/goods/services as being worthy of more protection
than another? That is afterall what the origianal law did. It valued the
solicitations from charity as more important speech than commercial
solicitations. I'm glad the decision will probably lead to a law that bans
all telephone solicitations asking for money.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

wolfgang+gnus20030929T090712@dailyplanet.dontspam. wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S.
Rupprecht) wrote in news:x7wubrzi28.fsf@capsicum.wsrcc.com:
OB NANAE: luckily if you run open-source you can make damn sure that nobody with an unavailable reverse-DNS is going to be able to pester you with spam.

Including people to whom you have sent email, soliciting a reply.

To those of you who use "block mismatched rDNS," please don't email anyone at
any domain I host; I tend to block rude bastiches as much and as fast as I do
other spammers.

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com/
Reward the good guys:
http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/

> > So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government can't prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they
don't prohibit charities from calling you.

Oooops, my bad. I guess I wrote that wrong. What I SHOULD have said was,

The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the
telemarketers' and charities' numerous phone calls and listen to their
spiels. That makes me feel sooooooooo much better, now that I understand it
better. -Dave

"Morely 'spam is theft' Dotes" <MorelyDotes@spamblocked.com> writes: wolfgang+gnus20030929T090712@dailyplanet.dontspam. wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) wrote in news:x7wubrzi28.fsf@capsicum.wsrcc.com: OB NANAE: luckily if you run open-source you can make damn sure that nobody with an unavailable reverse-DNS is going to be able to pester you with spam. Including people to whom you have sent email, soliciting a reply. To those of you who use "block mismatched rDNS," please don't email anyone at any domain I host; I tend to block rude bastiches as much and as fast as I do other spammers.

I know some folks block rDNS mismatches with env-from. I haven't
found it necessary to do that. (Having been a victim of a borg ISP
what simply refused to fix up any rDNS to point to the user's domain.)
I do block folks that haven't figured out how to setup their DNS and
MTA to issue self-consistent information. It is one of the better
ways to keep virus mailings off one's system. Most viruses issue some
bull-crap HELO name that doesn't exist in DNS at all.

I've gotten quite interesting results from having a URL at the end of
my reject message. Even some very non technical people ended up
following the URL to figure out what the setup problem was. Sometimes
you just have to educate one user at a time...

-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
The From: address is valid. Don't mess with it.

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:Cu1eb.9257$NX3.1437@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The
judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government
can't prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they don't prohibit charities from calling you. Oooops, my bad. I guess I wrote that wrong. What I SHOULD have said was, The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' and charities' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. That makes me feel sooooooooo much better, now that I understand
it better. -Dave

*plonk* another waste of time

wolfgang+gnus20030929T142652@dailyplanet.dontspam. wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S.
Rupprecht) wrote in news:x78yo7z39r.fsf@capsicum.wsrcc.com:
I've gotten quite interesting results from having a URL at the end of my reject message. Even some very non technical people ended up following the URL to figure out what the setup problem was. Sometimes you just have to educate one user at a time...

And sometimes the recipient of your reject message figure you don't have
anything to say that's worth bothering about if you can't figure out the
concept of virtual hosting.

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com/
Reward the good guys:
http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:5FRdb.157287$0v4.11784842@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message news:nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com... On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious
ruling, the judge may be a little less arrogant. Dude, we're trying to build a case that sending a goofball judge a few relatively harmless clues is not abusive, and you're not helping.

no, on the contrary, he is helping quite a bit :)

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e20deba7325afa989cb4@news.supernews.com ... In article <nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com>, nospam@bisusa.com says... Stan Brown wrote: You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn. Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is a foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial
notice presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion. I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game. The
home team got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called,
penalty, about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the
ground, broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh. There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game. I read a (non-fictional) story about hotly contested street security. The security officers got paid by five out of six shops. They were very upset that the sixth shop would not pay them so the stormed the shop, beat up the shopkeeper, broke all the windows, and set fire to the merchandise. There were no more shops not paying for security after that.

Ok! Kool, so its protectionism that you are suggesting now is it? You
actually want to be abusive?
I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is to appeal it to the higher court. On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious
ruling, the judge may be a little less arrogant. And if a shop keeper has to confront the possibility of getting beaten and possibly killed he'll likely be a little less arrogant when it comes time to pay for security.

Uh-Huh. with security measures like that, the term "anti-spam" will become
equal to "nazi"
oh, wait, isnt that what the spammers have been calling anti-spammers all
along? WOW!

so the spammers were right! I wonder how long it will take before being an
anti-spammer will
link someone with hate crimes?

WAKE UP! Using abuse will only hurt the cause, and reduce social sympathy,
and will also
alienate the allready marginalised (in this struggle) judicial system,
leading to legislation aginst
anti-spammer activities, not against spammer activities.

Bludy 'El The level of cluelessnes that the pro-abuse camp is displaying is
extrodinary to say the least.

In article <blai18$9tkj9$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de>, thg@fission-
chips.com.au says... "Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message news:MPG.19e20deba7325afa989cb4@news.supernews.com ... In article <nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com>, nospam@bisusa.com says... Stan Brown wrote: > > You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of > American government, the rule of law. > > The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to > the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not > physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning > crosses on a judge's lawn. Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is a foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial notice presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion. I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game. The home team got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called, penalty, about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the ground, broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh. There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game. I read a (non-fictional) story about hotly contested street security. The security officers got paid by five out of six shops. They were very upset that the sixth shop would not pay them so the stormed the shop, beat up the shopkeeper, broke all the windows, and set fire to the merchandise. There were no more shops not paying for security after that. Ok! Kool, so its protectionism that you are suggesting now is it? You actually want to be abusive? > > I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree > with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make our > rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to > deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is -- is > to appeal it to the higher court. On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling, the judge may be a little less arrogant. And if a shop keeper has to confront the possibility of getting beaten and possibly killed he'll likely be a little less arrogant when it comes time to pay for security. Uh-Huh. with security measures like that, the term "anti-spam" will become equal to "nazi" oh, wait, isnt that what the spammers have been calling anti-spammers all along? WOW! so the spammers were right! I wonder how long it will take before being an anti-spammer will link someone with hate crimes? WAKE UP! Using abuse will only hurt the cause, and reduce social sympathy, and will also alienate the allready marginalised (in this struggle) judicial system, leading to legislation aginst anti-spammer activities, not against spammer activities. Bludy 'El The level of cluelessnes that the pro-abuse camp is displaying is extrodinary to say the least.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you and I are on the same side regarding
fighting abuse with abuse. I used an extreme example sarcastically
figuring that even the most clueless could draw the parallel. I was
wrong, I should have just spelled it out.

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e29fb1609af0b989cb5@news.supernews.com. .. In article <blai18$9tkj9$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de>, thg@fission- chips.com.au says... "Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message news:MPG.19e20deba7325afa989cb4@news.supernews.com ... In article <nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com>, nospam@bisusa.com says... > Stan Brown wrote: > > > > You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of > > American government, the rule of law. > > > > The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to > > the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not > > physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning > > crosses on a judge's lawn. > > Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is
a > foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial notice > presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take > cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion. > > I read a (fictional) story about a hotly-contested football game.
The home > team got five penalties in six plays. On the sixth, wrongly called, penalty, > about a dozen fans stormed onto the field, threw the official to the ground, > broke his arm, dislocated his jaw, and stabbed him in the thigh. > > There were no more home-team penalties the rest of the game. I read a (non-fictional) story about hotly contested street security. The security officers got paid by five out of six shops. They were
very upset that the sixth shop would not pay them so the stormed the shop, beat up the shopkeeper, broke all the windows, and set fire to the merchandise. There were no more shops not paying for security after that. Ok! Kool, so its protectionism that you are suggesting now is it? You actually want to be abusive? > > > > > I don't say that every judge is perfect, and I happen to disagree > > with this one's decision. But intimidating judges does not make
our > > rights more secure, it makes them less secure. The proper way to > > deal with a wrong judicial decision -- which I believe this is --
is > > to appeal it to the higher court. > > On the other hand, if a judge has to confront the possibility of a > stab-wound in the thigh as a result of an arbitrary and capricious ruling, > the judge may be a little less arrogant. > And if a shop keeper has to confront the possibility of getting beaten and possibly killed he'll likely be a little less arrogant when it
comes time to pay for security. Uh-Huh. with security measures like that, the term "anti-spam" will
become equal to "nazi" oh, wait, isnt that what the spammers have been calling anti-spammers
all along? WOW! so the spammers were right! I wonder how long it will take before being
an anti-spammer will link someone with hate crimes? WAKE UP! Using abuse will only hurt the cause, and reduce social
sympathy, and will also alienate the allready marginalised (in this struggle) judicial system, leading to legislation aginst anti-spammer activities, not against spammer activities. Bludy 'El The level of cluelessnes that the pro-abuse camp is displaying
is extrodinary to say the least. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you and I are on the same side regarding fighting abuse with abuse. I used an extreme example sarcastically figuring that even the most clueless could draw the parallel. I was wrong, I should have just spelled it out.
Steve, sorry, my sarcasm meter is in the shop getting fixed :/
please accept my most abject appology.

T

In article <blapkc$a1c6k$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de>, thg@fission-
chips.com.au says... Steve, sorry, my sarcasm meter is in the shop getting fixed :/ please accept my most abject appology.

Not a problem, it happens to all of us at some time or another,
especially when we're involved in heated debates. I know I've misfired
in here on more than one occasion myself (great now I'll be spammed with
pill cures for premature flaming). :)

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

In article <nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com> in misc.consumers,
JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:Stan Brown wrote: You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn.Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is afoundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial noticepresumes judges live and interact in the real world and should takecognizance of reality.

Reality, yes. A judge may "take judicial notice" that 51 million
people have signed up for the list, for instance.

But "judicial notice" does not mean changing a decision because a
lot of people don't like the law.

I thought you just gave bad answers on misc.legal.moderated.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

In article <1064849746.268930@irys.nyx.net> in misc.consumers, Barry
Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote:And that's why it should be OK for you (or millions of "you") to callthe judge, either at his chambers or at his home (assuming we can findhis home phone). That is a _person_to_person_ contact, exactly whatthe phone system was created for.

I don't buy that, and I'm surprised to hear you advocate it.

You started off well with the principle that judges should not be
threatened over their decisions. Then you turn right around and
approve of a threat to a judge.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

"Terry H. Gilsenan" <thg@fission-chips.com.au> wrote in message
news:blai18$9tkj9$1@ID-205331.news.uni-berlin.de...
WAKE UP! Using abuse will only hurt the cause, and reduce social sympathy, and will also alienate the allready marginalised (in this struggle) judicial system, leading to legislation aginst anti-spammer activities, not against spammer activities.

Dream on, walk into any pub and announce you've arranged for some
telemarketer to get a million phone calls from other telemarkets, you won't
have to buy your own drink all night. Everybody hates these scum, nobody is
going to be upset if they, or idiot judges who shield them, get paid back in
their own coin. Well, almost nobody, a few folks apparently think we should
still be going cap-in-hand to ask for less spam please sir.
Bludy 'El The level of cluelessnes that the pro-abuse camp is displaying
is extrodinary to say the least.

Your way didn't work, the flow of spam and similar abuse only got worse,
only when the anti-spam campaign started to fight effectively, ie. with
kicks to the groin, did the spammers start to feel the pain. Remember, they
consider ALL effective anti-spam measures to be abusive, including
blocklists and filters and AUPs that are actually enforced. Nothing we do
to protect ourselves from spam and fax-blasting and telemarketing is okay
with them, so we might as well do things that actually accomplish something.

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e2c7912d1dcd4a98b49a@news.odyssey.net.. . You started off well with the principle that judges should not be threatened over their decisions. Then you turn right around and approve of a threat to a judge.

"Threat?" Since when is a phone call to say "I disagree with your decision,
it's going to make my life more difficult by allowing telemarketers to
continue to harass me" a "threat?" What's next, sending a letter to a
politcian on a matter of public policy will be threatening as well? These
people do not exist in isolation from society, and they shouldn't, they need
to appreciate that their decisions are not academic exercises, they have an
impact on how the rest of us live.

In article <%v9eb.158608$0v4.11899583@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid says... "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:MPG.19e2c7912d1dcd4a98b49a@news.odyssey.net.. . You started off well with the principle that judges should not be threatened over their decisions. Then you turn right around and approve of a threat to a judge. "Threat?" Since when is a phone call to say "I disagree with your decision, it's going to make my life more difficult by allowing telemarketers to continue to harass me" a "threat?"

Out of curiosity, where did you stand on the Something Awful invasion
here? Did you find what they did abusive?

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:In article <1064849746.268930@irys.nyx.net> in misc.consumers, BarryGold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote:And that's why it should be OK for you (or millions of "you") to callthe judge, either at his chambers or at his home (assuming we can findhis home phone). That is a _person_to_person_ contact, exactly whatthe phone system was created for.I don't buy that, and I'm surprised to hear you advocate it.You started off well with the principle that judges should not bethreatened over their decisions. Then you turn right around andapprove of a threat to a judge.

No, I *don't* approve of a threat to a judge. I approve of people
phoning the judge and telling him that they think his decision was
wrong *and why*.

My point was that it if somebody does something that unpopular, they
should expect to get a zillion phone calls (or voice mail messages,
since nobody answers at the judge's chambers). Too bad he won't
actually _listen_ to them.

Now, if the phone calls get abusive or threatening, that would be out
of line. And our laws quite properly ban threats, whether delivered
in person or over the phone.

Did you miss the rest of my post, where I pointed out that the calls
should not be abusive?
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com: I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes, before this. Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the fax law is TCPA,
and TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period.

What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech.
"Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of advertising costs,
limiting its regulation to faxes containing advertising was justified. The
ban is evenhanded, in that it applies to commercial solicitation by any
organization,..."
The case law is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure.

No, it's not.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:g7SdnS1No-azNOSiU-KYvQ@comcast.com:
"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com: I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes, before this. Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the fax law is TCPA, and TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period. What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech.

In DV v FCC, yes. The case law it was based on applies to commercial
speech, and restricting speech at all, and sepcifically so.
"Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of advertising costs, limiting its regulation to faxes containing advertising was justified. The ban is evenhanded, in that it applies to commercial solicitation by any organization,..." The case law is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure. No, it's not.
Not complicated, or not obscure?

--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion

Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com

"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94065CF0BDCD3taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:g7SdnS1No-azNOSiU-KYvQ@comcast.com: "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com: > I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes, before > this. > Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the fax law is TCPA, and TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period. What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech. In DV v FCC, yes. The case law it was based on applies to commercial speech, and restricting speech at all, and sepcifically so. "Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of advertising costs, limiting its regulation to faxes containing advertising was justified. The ban is evenhanded, in that it applies to commercial solicitation by any organization,..." The case law is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure. No, it's not. Not complicated, or not obscure?

In this case, which is the case you seem to want to cite, it's neither
complicated or obscure and wouldn't apply to non-cost shifting advertising
as the basis for a government interest in restricting commercial speech, so
it wouldn't be cited as a precedent. If you have other cases you think would
apply to restricting one type of commercial speech over another when there
is no cost shifting, please post a link.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:QFOdncedxI3tM-SiXTWJjg@comcast.com:
"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns94065CF0BDCD3taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:g7SdnS1No-azNOSiU-KYvQ@comcast.com: "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50...> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in> news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com:> > I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes, before> > this.> >> Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it> need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the> fax law is TCPA, and> TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period. What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech. In DV v FCC, yes. The case law it was based on applies to commercial speech, and restricting speech at all, and sepcifically so. "Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of advertising costs, limiting its regulation to faxes containing advertising was justified. The ban is evenhanded, in that it applies to commercial solicitation by any organization,..."> The case law> is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure. No, it's not. Not complicated, or not obscure? In this case, which is the case you seem to want to cite,

As I have said several time, this case cites SCOTUS case law on the
regulation of commercial (and other) speech. Try to pay attention. I'm not
going to repeat it again.

--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion

Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com

"Frugie" <someone@who.hates.spam.org> wrote in message
news:6GYcb.26071$an.14412@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, but on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :) No kidding, who regulates these judges? Where do I file a complaint? Does he really think that 51 million Americans, Congress, the Senate, (and hopefully soon the President once he signs the bill) are wrong in the
belief that we should have the ability to say enough is enough, no more solicitations...

What he thinks about what Americans want is just as irrelevant as what
Americans want. He's not a legislator. He's not there to act in accordance
with the will of the people, much less his impression of what that will
might be. He's there to interpret the law.

Beyond that, if the question is looked at on a first amendment basis, the
telemarketers are probably right. The government cannot silence people from
saying what they want as long as what they say is not wildly unreasonable.
However, the issue that the judge, and the FTC missed, is that there is no
constitutional freedom to use an appliance that belongs to someone else, nor
the services they pay for.

IOW, no one has the constitutional right to make the bell on my phone ring,
nor to use the electricity I pay for to make it ring, nor use the service I
pay for to get through to me. The telemarketer can say whatever they want,
but I have no obligation to furnish the means by which they get me to
listen.

That should have been the governments case. They should have stipulated as
to the free speech issue.

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e34569f8e4988e989cb8@news.supernews.com ...
Out of curiosity, where did you stand on the Something Awful invasion here? Did you find what they did abusive?

An attempt to disrupt the operation of a newsgroup by a group of petty
vandals who don't like their online hangout being called to account being
compared to voters and taxpayers expressing their opposition to a legal
decision that will directly influence the quality of their lives, hmmmmm,
something of a difference there.

I believe part of the problem with the law is judges making decisions that
fly in the face of what is right, ie. a burglar slips and falls while
breaking into your home and successfully sues you. I have no problem with
judges being made aware of just how out of tune they are with the real
world, sending threats etc. is another matter.

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:nyKdnQWf9YPrMeqiU-KYvQ@giganews.com... Stan Brown wrote: You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn. Not so. If it were, judges could be replaced by computers. There is a foundational concept in the law called "Judicial Notice." Judicial notice presumes judges live and interact in the real world and should take cognizance of reality. Also, judges have discretion.

Correct, but that discretion cannot be a substitute for the clear meaning of
the law. You used hyperbole to describe one extreme wherein computers would
be used to decide questions of law. Conversely, the other extreme which you
seem to favor is to eliminate all laws and let judges make up the rules as
they go along. The fact is that a judge must adhere to the clear meaning of
the law as closely as *humanly* possible.

Terry Austin <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns940662510A24Ataustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50:
I'm not going to repeat it again.

500,000 quatloos says you will. Past experience bears that out.

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com/
Reward the good guys:
http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/

"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns940662510A24Ataustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:QFOdncedxI3tM-SiXTWJjg@comcast.com: "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns94065CF0BDCD3taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:g7SdnS1No-azNOSiU-KYvQ@comcast.com: > "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message > news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... >> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in >> news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com: >> > I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes, before >> > this. >> > >> Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it >> need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the >> fax law is TCPA, > and >> TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period. > > What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech. In DV v FCC, yes. The case law it was based on applies to commercial speech, and restricting speech at all, and sepcifically so. > "Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of advertising > costs, limiting its regulation to faxes containing advertising was > justified. The ban is evenhanded, in that it applies to commercial > solicitation by any organization,..." > >> The case law >> is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure. > > No, it's not. > Not complicated, or not obscure? In this case, which is the case you seem to want to cite, As I have said several time, this case cites SCOTUS case law on the regulation of commercial (and other) speech. Try to pay attention. I'm not going to repeat it again.

And you're apparently not going to cite the decision you claim backs up
giving one form of commercial speech more protection than another.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Morely 'spam is theft' Dotes" <MorelyDotes@spamblocked.com> wrote in
news:Xns940670C8599F3MorelyDotesspamblock@216.99.2 11.247:
Terry Austin <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in news:Xns940662510A24Ataustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50: I'm not going to repeat it again. 500,000 quatloos says you will. Past experience bears that out.
I love you, too, Morley. But McWebber is boring.

--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion

Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:khmcna4r060ZQOSiU-KYhA@comcast.com:
"Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns940662510A24Ataustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:QFOdncedxI3tM-SiXTWJjg@comcast.com: "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:Xns94065CF0BDCD3taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50...> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in> news:g7SdnS1No-azNOSiU-KYvQ@comcast.com:>> > "Terry Austin" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message> > news:Xns940655733A884taustinhyperbookscom@216.168. 3.50...> >> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in> >> news:fNSdnahKD9oUV-WiU-KYuA@comcast.com:> >> > I didn't know they had ruled on phone calls, not faxes,> >> > before this.> >> >> >> Destination Ventures never made it to the Supremes (nor did it> >> need to, since it relied on well established case law), but the> >> fax law is TCPA,> > and> >> TCPA is TCPA. What was ruled on was commercial speech, period.> >> > What was ruled on was cost shifting commercial speech.>> In DV v FCC, yes. The case law it was based on applies to> commercial speech, and restricting speech at all, and sepcifically> so.>> > "Because Congress's goal was to prevent the shifting of> > advertising costs, limiting its regulation to faxes containing> > advertising was justified. The ban is evenhanded, in that it> > applies to commercial solicitation by any organization,..."> >> >> The case law> >> is a bit complicated, but isn't obscure.> >> > No, it's not.> >> Not complicated, or not obscure?> In this case, which is the case you seem to want to cite, As I have said several time, this case cites SCOTUS case law on the regulation of commercial (and other) speech. Try to pay attention. I'm not going to repeat it again. And you're apparently not going to cite the decision you claim backs up giving one form of commercial speech more protection than another.
Given that I already did, go play in traffic, retard.

--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion

Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com

In article <vnjer4ilk9g4a6@corp.supernews.com>, idaman@conversent.net
says... "Frugie" <someone@who.hates.spam.org> wrote in message news:6GYcb.26071$an.14412@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, but on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :) No kidding, who regulates these judges? Where do I file a complaint? Does he really think that 51 million Americans, Congress, the Senate, (and hopefully soon the President once he signs the bill) are wrong in the belief that we should have the ability to say enough is enough, no more solicitations... What he thinks about what Americans want is just as irrelevant as what Americans want. He's not a legislator. He's not there to act in accordance with the will of the people, much less his impression of what that will might be. He's there to interpret the law. Beyond that, if the question is looked at on a first amendment basis, the telemarketers are probably right. The government cannot silence people from saying what they want as long as what they say is not wildly unreasonable. However, the issue that the judge, and the FTC missed, is that there is no constitutional freedom to use an appliance that belongs to someone else, nor the services they pay for. IOW, no one has the constitutional right to make the bell on my phone ring, nor to use the electricity I pay for to make it ring, nor use the service I pay for to get through to me. The telemarketer can say whatever they want, but I have no obligation to furnish the means by which they get me to listen. That should have been the governments case. They should have stipulated as to the free speech issue.
Hear, hear. This is my exact feeling as well. It's hard to believe
that none of the parties in this whole fiasco has even mentioned this
aspect.

Jeannie
--
To reply to me, remove *spamenot* from address.

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:Cu1eb.9257$NX3.1437@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The
judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave No, the judge interpreted the First Amendment to say the government
can't prohibit the telemarketer from calling you based on the fact that they don't prohibit charities from calling you. Oooops, my bad. I guess I wrote that wrong. What I SHOULD have said was, The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' and charities' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. That makes me feel sooooooooo much better, now that I understand
it better. -Dave

That's not what the court said. It said that the Feds cannot punish those
who speak based upon the content of that speech so long as it's reasonable.
The term reasonable means not liable, slanderous, wildly offensive (e.g.,
pornographic), etc.

What the FTC failed to argue, and so the court never addressed, (and which
you actually correctly touched upon) is whether or not the telemarketer has
the right to use *your* appliance. Clearly, they have no constitutional
right to do so, and if the enabling legislation were to make the use of
another's appliance, against their will, an offense, then the
do-not-call-list would probably pass muster.

In article <%v9eb.158608$0v4.11899583@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in misc.consumers, DGDevin
<dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:"Threat?" Since when is a phone call to say "I disagree with your decision,it's going to make my life more difficult by allowing telemarketers tocontinue to harass me" a "threat?"

One phone call isn't (though IMHO it's still improper). Thousands of
phone calls _is_.

I wonder how this would differ from a denial of service attack,
which last I heard is illegal and even under recent legislation(*)
might be considered terrorism.


(*) bad legislation IMHO, like most post-9/11 laws infringing our
civil rights

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

In article <1064933933.724452@irys.nyx.net> in misc.consumers, Barry
Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote:No, I *don't* approve of a threat to a judge. I approve of peoplephoning the judge and telling him that they think his decision waswrong *and why*.My point was that it if somebody does something that unpopular, theyshould expect to get a zillion phone calls (or voice mail messages,since nobody answers at the judge's chambers). Too bad he won'tactually _listen_ to them.

It's not his job to listen to them. He is a judge, not a legislator.
Federal judges don't face the voters, and this sort of thread is a
good illustration of why the Founders were wise to insulate judges
from politics to the extent possible.
Now, if the phone calls get abusive or threatening, that would be outof line. And our laws quite properly ban threats, whether deliveredin person or over the phone.Did you miss the rest of my post, where I pointed out that the callsshould not be abusive?

One call is abusive or not, depending on its timing and its content.

Thousands of calls are ipso facto abusive, because they make it
impossible to use the phone in a normal manner.

Apart from the unwisdom of trying to make judges more politically
accountable, there is the hypocrisy of saying it's bad for
telemarketers to annoy me with one or two calls at a time, but okay
for an organized campaign to annoy one person with thousands of
calls.

I'm going to respond no more to this thread after this. Clearly I'm
not going to change anyone's mind. It's a good thing I don't teach
civics for a living; I'd be _really_ frustrated.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely
reduces the number of useful answers you get.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html

In article <N0jeb.164821$3o3.11870021@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid says... "Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message news:MPG.19e34569f8e4988e989cb8@news.supernews.com ... Out of curiosity, where did you stand on the Something Awful invasion here? Did you find what they did abusive? An attempt to disrupt the operation of a newsgroup by a group of petty vandals who don't like their online hangout being called to account being compared to voters and taxpayers expressing their opposition to a legal decision that will directly influence the quality of their lives, hmmmmm, something of a difference there. I believe part of the problem with the law is judges making decisions that fly in the face of what is right, ie. a burglar slips and falls while breaking into your home and successfully sues you. I have no problem with judges being made aware of just how out of tune they are with the real world, sending threats etc. is another matter.
The clerk of the court's home number was posted. So it's ok with you
that everyone calls that number? You don't see anything wrong with
that? If not, post your number so everyone can call you to express
their disdain for the ruling, it will have the same effect on that judge
as calling the clerk will. Anyway, a coordinated attack on a phone
number designed to cause grief by excessive calls is abuse regardless of
how you cloak it.

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e3e9de7051026d98b4a9@news.odyssey.net.. .
One phone call isn't (though IMHO it's still improper). Thousands of phone calls _is_.

Okay, I agree, anyone who makes thousands of phone calls to tell this court
their decision was a bad one is being abusive, what's this frequent dialer's
name? Did he switch phone booths every few minutes? Must have had a
five-gallon pail full of change, or the mother of all calling cards.

As for one call being improper, fine, everybody is entitled to their
opinion, the absurdity of one call being improper but not abusive while more
calls from other people somehow become abusive even if no two callers have
ever met we shall pass over. But it kind of reminds me of the black public
transit boycott in the south back in the 60s, since all black citizens were
refusing to ride the buses, they were all to be individually guilty of a
mass crime. That didn't come to much either.
I wonder how this would differ from a denial of service attack, which last I heard is illegal and even under recent legislation(*) might be considered terrorism.

DOS attacks are orchestrated, centrally initiated and sometimes even
controlled, and generally for malicious purposes. This was taxpayers
calling to vent their frustration and anger with yet another judicial
retreat from common sense in favor of exploring a legal blind alley, big
difference.

In article <MPG.19e3eaf5d56f702b98b4aa@news.odyssey.net>,
the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm says... In article <1064933933.724452@irys.nyx.net> in misc.consumers, Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote:No, I *don't* approve of a threat to a judge. I approve of peoplephoning the judge and telling him that they think his decision waswrong *and why*.My point was that it if somebody does something that unpopular, theyshould expect to get a zillion phone calls (or voice mail messages,since nobody answers at the judge's chambers). Too bad he won'tactually _listen_ to them. It's not his job to listen to them. He is a judge, not a legislator. Federal judges don't face the voters, and this sort of thread is a good illustration of why the Founders were wise to insulate judges from politics to the extent possible.Now, if the phone calls get abusive or threatening, that would be outof line. And our laws quite properly ban threats, whether deliveredin person or over the phone.Did you miss the rest of my post, where I pointed out that the callsshould not be abusive? One call is abusive or not, depending on its timing and its content. Thousands of calls are ipso facto abusive, because they make it impossible to use the phone in a normal manner. Apart from the unwisdom of trying to make judges more politically accountable, there is the hypocrisy of saying it's bad for telemarketers to annoy me with one or two calls at a time, but okay for an organized campaign to annoy one person with thousands of calls. I'm going to respond no more to this thread after this. Clearly I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's a good thing I don't teach civics for a living; I'd be _really_ frustrated.

You're up against the nanae creed of "it's abusive if done to us but not
abusive if we do it". Don't fret about it too much, it's not everyone
with that creed and a large number of people here agree with you that it
is abusive.

/steve
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Website, Your Shield From The
Internet.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:04:37 GMT, "DGDevin"
<dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
As for one call being improper, fine, everybody is entitled to theiropinion, the absurdity of one call being improper but not abusive while morecalls from other people somehow become abusive even if no two callers haveever met we shall pass over. But it kind of reminds me of the black publictransit boycott in the south back in the 60s, since all black citizens wererefusing to ride the buses, they were all to be individually guilty of amass crime. That didn't come to much either.


When was it a crime to NOT ride the bus? I haven't ridden a bus in 40
years. What's the usual sentence for that "crime"?

"AllYou!" wrote:
Beyond that, if the question is looked at on a first amendment basis, the telemarketers are probably right. The government cannot silence people from saying what they want as long as what they say is not wildly unreasonable. However, the issue that the judge, and the FTC missed, is that there is no constitutional freedom to use an appliance that belongs to someone else, nor the services they pay for.

If you take that argument it's easy enough to ban someone from using the mails
to send out advertising literature, since you pay for the mailbox your mail
comes through.
IOW, no one has the constitutional right to make the bell on my phone ring, nor to use the electricity I pay for to make it ring, nor use the service I pay for to get through to me.

The phone company pays for the electric current used to make the phone ring.
You may have one of those phones that is a portable or other type that doesn't
rely on current from the phone company to make it ring but the signal to do so
(and the electric current to make it happen) is sent by the telephone company.
Your phone line when on or off hook is, I believe, about 12 volts DC or less.
When it rings the current jumps to 48 volts DC. That you choose to use a phone
that requires additional electricity above and beyond what the phone company
provides is not relevant.
The telemarketer can say whatever they want, but I have no obligation to furnish the means by which they get me to listen.

No, but should someone's ability to communicate to others be dependent upon
whether the content of the material is commercial in nature? If we go that
route we might argue that they can pass a law that allows people to restrict
certain types of callers based on the content of their message, so that people
calling about, say, supporting the death penalty can be prohibited from calling
people who signed up on the "oppose the death penalty register" and those who
don't want calls in favor of gun control can prevent anyone presenting a message
supporting a handgun ban by having a list for that purpose.

Why is it that someone presenting a message to save the whales has a greater
protection for his speech than someone presenting a message to save at First
National Bank?
That should have been the governments case. They should have stipulated as to the free speech issue.

If you stipulate that the restriction violates free speech you're stipulating
that the do-not-call list is unconstitutional.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

Frugie wrote:
Does anyone have Nottingham's home phone number? Seems to me that he should get one call a minute -- not only on his home phone, but on his cell, at all hours of the night -- until he gets the message. :) No kidding, who regulates these judges? Where do I file a complaint? Does he really think that 51 million Americans, Congress, the Senate, (and hopefully soon the President once he signs the bill) are wrong in the belief that we should have the ability to say enough is enough, no more solicitations...

"Does Columbus really think that the Catholic Church and 20 million Catholics
(or whatever number it was in 1492) are wrong in the belief that the world is
flat?"

Just because a large number of people believe in something does not make it so.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

socks wrote:
the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard

Incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the (U.S.) Government (and by incorporation
from the 14th, the state governments) from censoring people's speech. It gives them the
right to speak and to express their opinions. It does not give them the right to be
heard. The recipient of a message has every right to ignore it.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

Jay Stuler wrote:
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:MPG.19e12bd6119c445898b481@news.odyssey.net.. . In article <izGdb.162333$3o3.11659659@bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in misc.consumers, DGDevin <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:Because it gets in the news and makes a point that needs to be made. Theonly reason the NDNCL has made it this far is because the politicians hadtheir noses rubbed in the fact that people *hate* telemarketing, now it'stime for the another branch of government, the judicial, to get the samemessage. You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn. Only if the judge said it was perfectly legal to burn crosses on people's lawns. This judge says it is legal for people to call unsolicited. So what's the problem?

He did not say that. He said that the method used to prohibit certain
unsolicited calls was illegal. If a judge says that it is unconstitutional to
burn people at the stake as a form of execution because it's cruel and unusual,
that does not mean it's legal to murder, nor does it mean that other methods of
execution are unconstitutional.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

McWebber wrote:
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message news:5TLdb.156903$0v4.11753149@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Judges make decisions based on their personal or religious or political biases all the time, it is absurd to pretend otherwise. Exactly why the telemarketer case was brought in OK.

Perhaps because one of the telemarketing companies is located in Oklahoma or
Nebraska. Back when AT&T offered banded WATS telephone service, you paid for
incoming calls to an 800 number - or outgoing ones - based on how far the call
was going. Since Nebraska (and Oklahoma) are in the center of the country, a
large percentage of the telephone "boiler rooms" for telemarketers are located
in Nebraska.

If one of them