Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nike might argue with that.

They might pay $1.5m not to be bothered, though.

What's recockulous about this decision is that it rests on discrimination between charitable solitications and commercial solicitation. Now, why did the FTC make that distinction? Because its statute says it can't go after non-profit entities. So, can't the FTC say: okay, charities aren't exempted, but then simply not go after them because they know they would have no authority?

[leagleaze]

As a side note it seems that CNN and FOX are having a bit of fun with each other. Tucker on CNN gave out FOX's number claiming it was his own. In return, FOX posted his real phone number on their web site.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98365,00.html

[ias_39]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Having been a law clerk who got to deal with harassing calls, I will submit calling this judge would not be the best career move. Unless you desire is to gain experience for your next career as the bottom in gay porn.

As if that's a deterrent to the stupid, the insane, and the judgement proof. For some, it might even be an inducement.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ias_39
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)



As if that's a deterrent to the stupid, the insane, and the judgement proof.

Remember his audience.

[ias_39]

burger: Having been a law clerk who got to deal with harassing calls, I will submit calling this judge would not be the best career move. Unless you desire is to gain experience for your next career as the bottom in gay porn.

me: As if that's a deterrent to the stupid, the insane, and the judgement proof. For some, it might even be an inducement.

BB: Remember his audience.

SP
PP
HP

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's recockulous about this decision is that it rests on discrimination between charitable solitications and commercial solicitation. Now, why did the FTC make that distinction? Because its statute says it can't go after non-profit entities. So, can't the FTC say: okay, charities aren't exempted, but then simply not go after them because they know they would have no authority?

Jumping in in the the middle and not having read any of the discussion before this, but whether it was Congress or the FTC made the distinction is irrelevant. It is, at least in the opinion of one judge (which on the surface appears reasonable), still a content based restriction on speech.

My recollection of First Amendment law says that's a fairly big no no..

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's recockulous about this decision is that it rests on discrimination between charitable solitications and commercial solicitation. Now, why did the FTC make that distinction?

Because Congress couldn't exempt their own political calls without throwing a bone to charities?

(Edited to say) Adder has it just right. The charity is in there because the political is in there - it's cover - but any such choice of content renders it all UC. If it banned all, it might be a valid TP&M limit.

So, do you think they'll re-pass it without charity and politics?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
OK. What about the consumers' privacy rights not to be disturbed in their own homes, jackass? So the fucking annoying telemarketers have a right to set off a noisemaker in our homes even though we affirmatively tell them we don't want them to?

It's dumbass judges like this that make me not so upset that they are grossly underpaid...

I've never understood the rage this issue brings out in people. Personally, I just don't get that many calls (of course, I'm usually not home during marketing hours).

But "right to set off a noisemaker?" You know you can turn the ringer off, right? You also know that you can purchase a service to block restricted numbers too, right?

It all strikes me as 1) a lot of complaining about a few rather minor (in the grand scheme of things) inconveniences and 2) in line with suing over not being warned about hot coffee. What's next, outrage over commercials on the TV and radio?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I was actually on that mailing list and may still have the email. I think that was your first attempt to contact me. I knew I was FB cool then (though I remember being surprised that any of the internet people would meet IRL, must less *date*). How young we were. And how classy she was to do the IM dump.

I was going to complain last night about not being on the list of "our friends" who got the email. But to find out Paigow got it --- oh the humanity.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore

So, do you think they'll re-pass it without charity and politics?

No.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
Jumping in in the the middle and not having read any of the discussion before this, but whether it was Congress or the FTC made the distinction is irrelevant. It is, at least in the opinion of one judge (which on the surface appears reasonable), still a content based restriction on speech.

My recollection of First Amendment law says that's a fairly big no no..

It's not really content-based, is it? Isn't it based on mode of communication (telephone), identity of communicator (commercial enterprise), and expressed preference to opt out?

T. (don't really know much about the statute) S.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's not really content-based, is it? Isn't it based on mode of communication (telephone), identity of communicator (commercial enterprise), and expressed preference to opt out?

T. (don't really know much about the statute) S.

Your friends can still call you at 3am to discuss cars. Your kid's teacher can call. Absolute strangers who have never spoken to you before can call and ask to discuss politics, charities, or your kid's teacher.

Telemarketers can call you anytime, to discuss anything that is NOT related to their jobs or sales pitches. They probably won't but they can, so it's not identity-based.

Politicians can still call, unless they are trying to sell you aluminum siding. (Query whether having donated by phone to a politician allows that politician, after she loses the election, to become a siding seller and use your pre-existing relationship to call you.)

The only restriction is, someone cannot call you out of the blue to discuss with you the possibility of a commercial sale.

It is clearly the content of the call that is distinguished. Problem is, charity calls are "commercial" calls, and the inclusion of those makes the exclusion of regular sales calls discriminatory vis-a-vis the USConst.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I know this may be outable, but I need you to say it isnt so.

PLF was IMing me about something and I told him I visuallize you wearing a plaid suit He said you dont, just a lot of down and polypropolyene and white manpanties.

Is it true you dont wear plaid suits? this is blowing my mind.

In Stark contrast to some of the longtime GAs who have so sadly yet so obliously hurdled the shark, to coin a phrase,....P..[COUGH] L....COUGH].....F..[COUGH], you, Paigow, have truly hit your stride.

Gotta love the Paigow, indeed!

Penske

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I'm a little more concerned about how PLF might know about the manpanty thing.

Pretty Little Flower is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Flower, my lover

I'm sure all y'all have heard the old wives' tale that no one, no matter how stoned on the hibiscus leaf, may be forced to do that which is repellent to his moral nature, whatever that may be.

Indeed.