The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 01.07.2005 14:05:40 von ihaveenoughspamasitis

I did some research and found that it was the Newspaper and Magazine
Publisher's Associations that were lobbying for the passing of anti-spam and
anti-telemarketing laws. Public record revealed it was they who were
influencing congress then enlisting the press to get people to support it as
a "privacy" issue. In reality they recognized that the new technologies like
auto-dialers and the Internet was a direct threat to their bottom line. They
didn't like that the little guy could reach the masses on their own without
paying huge sums of money. If you look at your State telemarketing laws,
Newspaper Publishers and Politicians are exempt. Now everyone has to pay
more for their goods and services because there's no other way for the small
business person to safely advertise except through the Government's mail
system, the TV, Magazines or Newspapers.

Ironically many Americans actually believe it's being done for their own
protection. If the average person understood how you get an unconstitutional
Bill through congress, they would be seeing things differently. When a hard
to pass Bill is in the works and is unlikely to be passed, you simply attach
it to another more popular Bill. In the case of CAN-SPAM they attached
anti-porn legislation with anti-marketing legislation. The two were never
meant to be combined. It was initially designed to prosecute pornographers.
That's why it holds a prison sentence. Which in itself is a good law. Then
the Newspapers and Magazine lobby groups tacked on the marketing part of it
and both passed as one law.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I find it unsettling that people
can be conned so easily into giving up their First Amendment and other
rights at the whim of the Media and powerful well funded Trade Associations.

Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Trade

At present the rights of every American is being violated due to the covert
lobbying efforts of newspaper, magazine and Media Associations.
As a result of telemarketing and anti-spam laws:

Each and every consumer is paying more for their goods.

Foreign countries are given the edge over small businesses in America.

After you have read this article it is my hopes that you will see that:

These laws are not about protecting the consumer from being bothered at
dinner time by a telemarketer. It is not about protecting the public's
e-mail boxes from being filled with unwanted e-mail. As our natural
resources get depleted by de-forestation, we're still getting bombarded by
junk mail. For decades this has been going on and no one is going to jail
for it. In fact it's being delivered to us by our Government's postal
system.

It is about corporate greed.
It is about restraint of trade.
It is about unfair elimination of the competition.
It is about reducing the power of the individual and the small business.

You see, the Mass Media has determined that bulk email and telemarketing are
in direct competition with their business. The Media as well as well as some
factions within the Government are threatened with modern technologies that
allow an individual or a small business to bypass "the system" and be able
to potentially communicate with millions of people at a very low cost.

Let's take a look at what's really going on..
..
In some states such as Florida the publisher's lobbyists have even gotten
themselves exempt from the very law they pushed for!

501.059 Telephone solicitation.--
(c)  "Unsolicited telephonic sales call" means a telephonic sales call other
than a call made:
1.  In response to an express request of the person called;
2.  Primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, payment or
performance of which has not been completed at the time of such call;
3.  To any person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing
business relationship; or
4.  By a newspaper publisher or his or her agent or employee in connection
with his or her business.

And of course the politicians are exempt!

501.604 Exemptions.--The provisions of this part, except ss. 501.608 and
501.616(6) and (7), do not apply to:
(2)  A person soliciting for religious, charitable, political, or
educational purposes.
Click here to see the full law on the Florida Senate's website.

Even with the advent of Federal legislation, for those with a mega-buck
budget it's business as usual. In fact many of the same corporations that
instigated anti-spam and anti-telemarketing legislations are among the
biggest violators of their own laws! But what do they care? Big business can
afford to pay the penalties, and pay they do! Yet keep in mind that these
costs are being passed on to the consumer.

DO NOT CALL
Detailed Information

10-27-2004
Citation issued to Equity One, Marlton, New Jersey for failure to honor
the FCC's National Do Not Call rules
09-07-2004
$400,000 Consent Decree with Primus Telecommunications, Inc. concerning
National Do-Not-Call Registry rules and requirements
07-09-2004
$490,000 Consent Decree with A.T.&T. Corp. concerning company-specific
Do-Not-Call requirements and related matters
Click here to see the complete list on the FTC's website.

To further complicate matters they have used their unrestricted access to
mass communication to get the public to rise up in support of these laws.
Just think about it. Are there anti-junk mail laws? Take a look at garbage
that is being allow to transmitted to your television. Ads from drug
companies. Alcohol advertisements. The list goes on and on. Harmful drugs
get FDA approval, while relatively harmless herbs and vitamins get taken off
the market. Why are they left untouched? Yet if a citizen or a small
business sends out some email they can go to jail? Is there something wrong
with this picture?

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.

Legal Citings:

"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

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 01.07.2005 18:46:08 von NormanM

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:40 GMT, ihaveenoughspamasitis@nospam.com wrote:

> I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I find it unsettling that people
> can be conned so easily into giving up their First Amendment and other
> rights at the whim of the Media and powerful well funded Trade Associations.

You seem to have discovered the "Lumber Cartel"; but there is no "Lumber
Cartel".

Your right to freedom of speech does not obligate me to receive your free
speech. When your freedom of the press cost other people their resources,
you are actually stealing from them. Freedom of speech, freedom of the
press; neither justifies theft.

My email account does not exist for your benefit, it exists for my benefit.
Sending me unsolicited email by the hundreds effectively limits the
usefulness of my email account. I have either deleted email accounts, or
set them to block everything, in order to eliminate unwanted advertising.
The reason I didn't delete a Yahoo! Mail account that is getting spammed to
death is because I had a well used profile associated with that account;
that is the one which is set to block everything. Anything either to, or
from my username is automatically deleted, sight unseen. You may continue
to spam it, but the messages never reach the Inbox.

My thought on this is that you fail to grasp this fact; when two people's
freedoms come in conflict, the freedom to impose is trumped by the right to
be free from imposition.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 01.07.2005 22:30:52 von Alan Connor

On comp.mail.misc, in , "ihaveenoughspamasitis@nospam.com" wrote:

Not one link.

Here's a truth for you: Anyone can post anything in the Usenet.

If they want to be taken seriously, they provide links to
webpages that substantiate their claims.

AC

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 01.07.2005 22:47:30 von ihaveenoughspamasitis

On 1-Jul-2005, NormanM wrote:

> My thought on this is that you fail to grasp this fact; when two people's
> freedoms come in conflict, the freedom to impose is trumped by the right
> to
> be free from imposition.

When I go to mall I get stopped by the merchants selling in the walkway. In
Mexico this happens all the time. Should this be illegal too? Should they be
put in jail? Keep in mind originally the FCC defined the phone lines "free
air." You don't own the phone lines and up until recent years you didn't
even own the phone. If you hook up the phone, set up an e-mail account, or
turn on the broadcast television, there are certain aspects that you can't
control. Accept that or don't use them. These are not necessities. Billions
live without them. How is that any different than junk mail that has no
legal restrictions? The difference is the Government is making money off it
and can control it a lot easire the the phone or internet.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US
president (1743-1826)

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 01.07.2005 22:58:43 von Sam

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 00:30:46 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14512-1120257047-0012
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ihaveenoughspamasitis@nospam.com writes:

> When I go to mall I get stopped by the merchants selling in the walkway. In
> Mexico this happens all the time. Should this be illegal too?

Yes, and it is. This is not Mexico. Shopping malls are private property.
If some homeless bum tries to peddle some crap from his shopping cart, the
mall management will eject him from the property.

> Should they be
> put in jail?

If they ignore the tresspass warning, than yes.

> Keep in mind originally the FCC defined the phone lines "free
> air." You don't own the phone lines and up until recent years you didn't
> even own the phone. If you hook up the phone, set up an e-mail account, or
> turn on the broadcast television, there are certain aspects that you can't
> control.

Unlike broadcast television, Internet access is not free.

> Accept that or don't use them.

My E-mailbox is my private property. I pay for it. It is not in the public
domain. It is private property. And I chose not to allow it to be used as
a public advertising billboard.

Accept that, or don't use it.

> These are not necessities. Billions
> live without them. How is that any different than junk mail that has no
> legal restrictions?

Junk mail has quite a few legal restrictions, Matlock.

> The difference is the Government is making money off it

The federal budget is a publicly available document. Would you mind
highlighting the line item which shows how much money the Government is
"making" off junk mail?

> and can control it a lot easire the the phone or internet.
>
> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
> than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US
> president (1743-1826)

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted
communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed
word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent
by mail. The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which
'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality, and none of the
recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with
another."

Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, ROWAN v. USPS (1970)

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14512-1120257047-0012
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCxcQXx9p3GYHlUOIRAsNJAJ9vuXLSPfqvU2yjxPA1x9VGsfBM/ACf dBC6
rZYefd8TY16STJhmNC+f/bo=
=qYUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14512-1120257047-0012--

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 04:52:06 von ihaveenoughspamasitis

On 1-Jul-2005, Sam wrote:

> > Accept that or don't use them.
>
> My E-mailbox is my private property. I pay for it. It is not in the
> public
> domain. It is private property. And I chose not to allow it to be used
> as
> a public advertising billboard.
>
> Accept that, or don't use it.

Is your postal mailbox private property too?

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 04:57:58 von ihaveenoughspamasitis

On 1-Jul-2005, Alan Connor wrote:

> On comp.mail.misc, in ,
> "ihaveenoughspamasitis@nospam.com" wrote:
>
> Not one link.
>
> Here's a truth for you: Anyone can post anything in the Usenet.
>
> If they want to be taken seriously, they provide links to
> webpages that substantiate their claims.
>
>
>
> AC

In some states such as Florida the publisher's lobbyists have even gotten
themselves exempt from the very law they pushed for!
501.059 Telephone solicitation.--
(c)  "Unsolicited telephonic sales call" means a telephonic sales call other
than a call made:
1.  In response to an express request of the person called;
2.  Primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, payment or
performance of which has not been completed at the time of such call;
3.  To any person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing
business relationship; or
4.  By a newspaper publisher or his or her agent or employee in connection
with his or her business.

To see the full law on the Florida Senate's website.
http://tinyurl.com/b6v22 http://tinyurl.com/cpx3c

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 05:38:58 von Sam

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 09:49:39 von NormanM

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:47:30 GMT, ihaveenoughspamasitis@nospam.com wrote:

> On 1-Jul-2005, NormanM wrote:
>
>> My thought on this is that you fail to grasp this fact; when two people's
>> freedoms come in conflict, the freedom to impose is trumped by the right
>> to be free from imposition.
>
> When I go to mall I get stopped by the merchants selling in the walkway. In
> Mexico this happens all the time. Should this be illegal too? Should they be
> put in jail?

It doesn't happen to me in U.S. malls. It did happen to me in 1971, in
Augusta, Ga.; I suppose it was the reason the soldiers at Ft. Gordon called
the place, "Disgusted, Ga.". I didn't like it, and I would definitely stay
away from any U.S. mall which had the feature. Since any U.S. mall I have
visited lacks that "feature", I have to assume that the market has driven
such practices out.

> Keep in mind originally the FCC defined the phone lines "free
> air." You don't own the phone lines and up until recent years you didn't
> even own the phone. If you hook up the phone, set up an e-mail account, or
> turn on the broadcast television, there are certain aspects that you can't
> control. Accept that or don't use them. These are not necessities. Billions
> live without them.

I have put my phone number on the U.S. FCC "Do not call list". I use an
answering machine to screen incoming calls. Whatever you say about who owns
the phone lines, or the equipment, I am paying the bill for my convenience,
and nobody else's.

> How is that any different than junk mail that has no
> legal restrictions? The difference is the Government is making money off it
> and can control it a lot easire the the phone or internet.

So why is it illegal for advertisers to drive sound trucks down my street
at midnight, or to use master keys to enter my home to plaster ad posters
on my walls? I set up my own domain, and MTA, just because that appeared to
be the most practical way for me to take control of my Inbox. Remember, it
is ***MY*** Inbox, and nobody else's. I have a border router, just as I
have a lockable front door to my home.

> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
> than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US
> president (1743-1826)

Remember, Thomas Jefferson also bought into the idea that my home is my
castle, and no government soldiers can be quartered there (amendment three
to the U.S. constitution), nor can government agents freely enter to search
for contraband (amendment four to the U.S. constitution). Those store
greeters of Augusta, which I mentioned at the start, actually laid hands on
me. Had I known then what I know now I would have had them up on charges of
assault. Very disgusting creatures, they were; maybe they have gone into
spamming because the malls won't hire them.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 14:59:44 von NOYB

On 2-Jul-2005, NormanM wrote:

> > How is that any different than junk mail that has no
> > legal restrictions? The difference is the Government is making money off
> > it
> > and can control it a lot easire the the phone or internet.
>
> So why is it illegal for advertisers to drive sound trucks down my street
> at midnight, or to use master keys to enter my home to plaster ad posters
> on my walls? I set up my own domain, and MTA, just because that appeared
> to
> be the most practical way for me to take control of my Inbox. Remember, it
> is ***MY*** Inbox, and nobody else's. I have a border router, just as I
> have a lockable front door to my home.

It's your front door too. If you left your house open and unprotected
someone could start living there. If they paid your taxes it would end up
being theirs. It's called adverse possession.

--
All the best,

NOYB

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 16:44:05 von Martin Edwards

A fascinating thread. Till I read it, I thought spammers were just
getting away with whatever they could get away with. It had really
never occurred to me that they would attempt to put forward moral
arguments for their activities. It just goes to show that the human
animal has an infinite capacity for self-deception.

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 02.07.2005 21:59:57 von NormanM

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:59:44 GMT, NOYB wrote:

> On 2-Jul-2005, NormanM wrote:
>> So why is it illegal for advertisers to drive sound trucks down my street
>> at midnight, or to use master keys to enter my home to plaster ad posters
>> on my walls? I set up my own domain, and MTA, just because that appeared
>> to be the most practical way for me to take control of my Inbox. Remember,
>> it is ***MY*** Inbox, and nobody else's. I have a border router, just as I
>> have a lockable front door to my home.
>
> It's your front door too. If you left your house open and unprotected
> someone could start living there. If they paid your taxes it would end up
> being theirs. It's called adverse possession.

It seems inconceivable that somebody could take up residence in my home
without my knowledge. After all, my home is where I live. (Vacation
property is not a "home", at least in the common sense; as contrasted with
legal sense.) And once I un-invite a person on my property, his continued
presence becomes criminal trespass. Some young lad discovered that problem
last Memorial Day weekend; he was caught shoplifting from a vendor at a
convention, and his member badge pulled by the convention authorities. He
was expelled with the warning not to try and return, but return he did. On
his next visit to the site he was removed, in handcuffs, by the city
police.

As I understand adverse possesssion, somebody else can pay my taxes only if
I am in arrears. They can't pay my taxes two days before the due date just
to ace me out of my home.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 10.07.2005 05:42:45 von NOYB

On 9-Jul-2005, "J. Clarke" wrote:

> > 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?
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the First Amendment was
> not
> intended to protect advertisers. What you personally think it means it
> irrelevant, what the Court says is the Law unless the Congress and the
> legislatures of the several states choose to Amend the Constitution to
> overrule it.

"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

Re: The truth behind anti-telemarketing and spam laws...

am 11.07.2005 01:46:01 von unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)