Discussion:
The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...
(too old to reply)
NOYB
2005-07-07 16:53:11 UTC
Permalink
I don't think the first amendment was created to allow people to interrupt
your evenings with sales calls over the phone or to fill up your e-mail
box
with tons of spam. While we are not yet totally free of such annoyances,
Caller ID and Spam Blocking software, in combination with some level of
regulation, have helped a lot.
IMO an "annoyance isn't justification to squelch mass communication. For a
price this can be done despite present law. The key being "for a price."
There are many inexpensive ways to legitimately advertise products and
services.
Such as?
Those who aren't considerate of others in their marketing
efforts,
_especially_ spammers, are usually less than worthy to enter into a
transaction or business agreement of any sort. People with legitimate
businesses have products and services that are priced out to include
advertising costs and the like.
I get spammed and telemarketed by major corporations too. The largest
judgment so far was against ATT. To suggest that only illegitimate
businesses employ these marketing practices is absurd. If you want to get
fundamentalist about then say, "word of mouth advertising is the only
legitimate form of advertising." You're of course free to draw your own
personal line in the sand. But don't impose that on everyone.
People with legitimate
businesses have products and services that are priced out to include
advertising costs and the like.
Yes we all pay the price for this sort of legislation. Is it no wonder that
advertising money is now going overseas to countries like China and India?
Does this mean that you can't start a business on a small budget? Of
course
not. You just have to work a bit harder
That's the bottom line. Make it harder on small business. You seem to
understand the effect but not the cause.
because there have been significant efforts to reduce the amount of "be
rude and push yourself in someone's
face for free" sales methodologies.
Rude is in the eye of the receiver. If it didn't work, it wouldn't continue.
In practice there must be many out there who respond to this sort of
advertising. Which is evidence that the Government isn't responding to the
wishes of the consumer, but to special interest groups. The Vietnam war was
the ultimate in "rude" in the eyes of the majority but you didn't see them
responding to the wishes of the people. But they DO respond to the people
who won't buy a $20 answering machine or use throw away e-mail addresses?
Can't you see there's something wrong with that picture?
As to who lobbied for and against such regulation, as well as their
ultimate
motive, is questionable on both sides of the fence. Sometimes good things
happen as a result to the insincere or inappropriate action of others.
Such
is G-d's world.
G-d or "good" has nothing to do with this legislation. Being that you're not
spelling out the name of G-d, you must be educated in Torah or Kaballah. You
know who rules this world. If you don't maybe you need to expand your
studies.

Eph 6:12 For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but
against persons without bodies-the evil rulers of the unseen world, those
mighty satanic beings and great evil princes of darkness who rule this world

2 Cor 4:3 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see...

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world
is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me.


Eph 2:2 You went along with the crowd and were just like all the others,
full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air, who
is at work right now in the hearts of those who are against the Lord.

Bill of Rights Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time
of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding
it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are
bound to enforce it."
-- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and
void."
 --- Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them."
--- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed."
--- Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442


All the best,

NOYB


Warmest regards,

Steve Horrillo, Realtor / C.Ht.
http://BrokerAgentTraining.com http://over100percent.com http:/HipFSBO.com
http://eLOWn.com
NOYB
2005-07-07 18:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOYB
Those who aren't considerate of others in their marketing
efforts,
_especially_ spammers, are usually less than worthy to enter into a
transaction or business agreement of any sort. People with legitimate
businesses have products and services that are priced out to include
advertising costs and the like.
I get spammed and telemarketed by major corporations too. The largest
judgment so far was against ATT. To suggest that only illegitimate
businesses employ these marketing practices is absurd.
Go to http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/DNCall.html and see who can afford to not
obey the law.
--
All the best,

NOYB


Warmest regards,

Steve Horrillo, Realtor / C.Ht.
http://BrokerAgentTraining.com http://over100percent.com http:/HipFSBO.com
http://eLOWn.com
NOYB
2005-07-09 00:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Spamming USENET newsgroups is sort of like handing out pamphlets and
trying
to sell something in church or at a funeral. It is not against the law,
and
no one can prevent you from doing it. But the folks at the service are
likely to be annoyed, and they have every right to refuse to buy and to
boycott the product you are selling.
The one's that think USENET or the Internet is Holy Non-commercial Ground
are in a dream world and are living the past. COYOTE (Call Off Your Old
Tired Ethics)
--
All the best,

NOYB
NOYB
2005-07-09 00:39:27 UTC
Permalink
don't think the first amendment was created to allow people to interrupt
your evenings with sales calls
The First Ammendment was created so that the, "one could speak to the many"
without reprisal. Just study your history. If you don't want to get off your
chair and study then use common sense. "Free Speech." Do you really think
that an Amendment enacted just to protect one on one communication? Duh?
--
All the best,

NOYB
NOYB
2005-07-09 16:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Spamming USENET newsgroups is sort of like handing out pamphlets and
trying to sell something in church or at a funeral. It is not against
the
law, and no one can prevent you from doing it. But the folks at the
service are likely to be annoyed, and they have every right to refuse to
buy and to boycott the product you are selling.
One difference. If someone is, say, handing out Al Qaeda pamphlets at the
synagogue, he may "have an accident" with 500 upright and respectable
eyewitnesses all agreeing that "he tripped". Unfortunately such things
don't happen to spammers.
Bad things happen to bad people. WORD. These "upright citizens" who turned a
blind eye to a crime will eventually find themselves in a concentration camp
or some other bad situation. You are punished by your sins, not for them. In
addition, as unfair as it seems, their sin will be passed on from generation
to generation but only to members who don't recognize and renounce their
ancestors sinful behavior. The same will happen to any organized group who
puts their own selfish interests above the higher good of the All. This is
how the just how the Universe works. Sinat hinam. When will they learn?

Sinat hinam
Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three sins: idolatry,
immorality and bloodshed. But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing
that during the time it stood people occupied themselves with Torah, with
observance of mitzvot ("commandments"), and with the practice of tzedakah
("charity")? Because during the time the Second Temple stood, sinat hinam
("baseless hatred") prevailed. This teaches us that baseless hatred is
deemed as grave as the sins of idolatry, immorality and bloodshed combined.
--Talmud (Yoma 9b)
--
All the best,

NOYB
jponiato
2005-07-15 17:45:48 UTC
Permalink
"NOYB" <***@this_newsgroup.com> wrote in message news:G4dze.37047$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

***snip***
Post by NOYB
Rude is in the eye of the receiver. If it didn't work, it wouldn't continue.
In practice there must be many out there who respond to this sort of
advertising. Which is evidence that the Government isn't responding to the
wishes of the consumer, but to special interest groups.
Wrong. Various studies show that few people who receive spam buy anything -
the figure ranges from 3% to 11% depending on the study. Either way, it
means
the vast majority of users do *not* respond by buying as a result of spam.
So the government is responding to the masses, not special interest groups.
If the government was inclined to cave in to special interests, it would be
the
marketing groups who are in favor of spam. After all, they are much better
funded
than those of us opposing it.
Post by NOYB
the ultimate in "rude" in the eyes of the majority but you didn't see them
responding to the wishes of the people. But they DO respond to the people
who won't buy a $20 answering machine or use throw away e-mail addresses?
Can't you see there's something wrong with that picture?
The problem is this: If I get junk mail in my old-fashioned mailbox, at
least I
didn't have to pay the postage - the sender did. If I get sales calls on
the
phone, I'm not expected to accept reverse charges. SPAM on the other hand
is payed for by everyone who receives it, in their monthly ISP charges. Our
ISPs
pay for the storage and bandwidth, and pass the charges on to us in our
fees. Sure,
small businesses need to find creative ways to get their advertising message
out.
Expecting the general public to foot the bill just isn't fair.

For a wealth of information on SPAM, it's costs to society, it's affect on
available
bandwidth, and various legal matters surrounding it, see
http://www.cauce.org/congress/.

Jp
NOYB
2005-07-15 22:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jponiato
The problem is this: If I get junk mail in my old-fashioned mailbox, at
least I
didn't have to pay the postage - the sender did.
Because of junk mail people with small boxes have to waste their time
checking it every day. When they go on vacation they have to pay for a
larger storage box. The amount of damage done to the environment due to
deforestation and costs for garbage disposal etc. is costing us all. No
difference.
Post by jponiato
If I get sales calls on
the
phone, I'm not expected to accept reverse charges. SPAM on the other hand
is paid for by everyone who receives it, in their monthly ISP charges.
Our
ISPs
pay for the storage and bandwidth, and pass the charges on to us in our
fees. Sure,
small businesses need to find creative ways to get their advertising message
out.
Expecting the general public to foot the bill just isn't fair.
Expecting the public pay the billions of dollars the US sends to Israel for
"humanitarian aid" isn't fair to the general public either. 99% of the
Internet is unused pages just sitting there. Just the anti-spammers crying
back an forth to each other's got to eat up a fair chunk. Not to mention the
disruption of communication blackmailing providers into using blacklists
cause. There's plenty of other wastes of our money resources and bandwidth
that don't carry a prison sentence.
--
All the best,

NOYB
jponiato
2005-07-29 15:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOYB
99% of the
Internet is unused pages just sitting there. Just the anti-spammers crying
back an forth to each other's got to eat up a fair chunk.
Like spit in the ocean. Spam comprises over 75% of all email traffic now.
The drain on internet resources is huge. No doubt, junk postal mail
does cost us in terms of wasting natural resources, but you are eluding
my point, which was simply that we recipients aren't subsidizing the
senders marketing costs by paying the postage. With email, we are.

Peace,
Jp
Keter Pardes
2005-07-30 12:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by jponiato
Post by NOYB
99% of the
Internet is unused pages just sitting there. Just the anti-spammers crying
back an forth to each other's got to eat up a fair chunk.
Like spit in the ocean. Spam comprises over 75% of all email traffic now.
The drain on internet resources is huge. No doubt, junk postal mail
does cost us in terms of wasting natural resources, but you are eluding
my point, which was simply that we recipients aren't subsidizing the
senders marketing costs by paying the postage. With email, we are.
Peace,
Jp
Rather than worrying about the cost of wasted bandwidth, be glad you still
have an unrestricted flow of information. We have to take the good with the
bad in any free flowing information system. The governments, censors, and
general control freaks are just looking for an excuse to restrict global
free speech and they use people with your attitude as their minions. You
will get exactly what you deserve. Tail wags dog...
--
All the best,

Keter Pardes
(reply to me here I don't read my email)
Loading...