[Vision2020] "Do Not Call" bill passes

Troy Merrill troy1@moscow.com
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:30:54 -0700


I don't the constitutional problem arises simply from restricting speech.
The law creates two classes of speech and restricts only one.

Troy Merrill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Dickow" <dickow@uidaho.edu>
To: "'Vision2020'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Do Not Call" bill passes


>
> I'm not sure about the Constitutional violation, but it seems
> to me that we often restrict 'free speech' when
> the other interests of a community are considered.
> We can't advertise cigarettes and hard liquor on TV
> any more, for example, nor on billboards. The greater
> good was considered in passing these restrictions.
>
> One thing to consider about telephone solicitations
> is that the calls could be considered to 'enter the
> household' where a hard border can be raised in order
> to protect the right to personal privacy over the
> right to 'free speech' of the caller.
>
> Properly configured, I see no breach of Constitutional
> rights here.
>
> Bob Dickow
>
> ----------
> From: Dale Courtney <dmcourtn@moscow.com>
> To: 'Vision2020' <vision2020@moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] "Do Not Call" bill passes
> Date: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:02 PM
>
> All,
>
> About five minutes ago, the President signed into the law the so-called
"Do
> Not Call" bill, heavily passed by both Houses.   It seems an obvious
> Constitutional violation.
>
> I deplore those telemarketing calls as much anyone, I'd imagine, but I
> don't
> believe the law is Constitutional and, indeed, the judiciary is expected
to
> strike it down.
>
> Best,
> Dale
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>