[Vision2020] "Do Not Call" bill passes

Tim Lohrmann timlohr@yahoo.com
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:48:29 -0700 (PDT)

 Political advertising--an exercise of free speech,
 What does it take to buy political advertising?
Money, right?
 Remember the last challenge to the campaign finance
laws--Buckley v. Vallejo?
 The Supremes held that in this context "Money is
speech," and that curtailing the right to collect this
sort of contribution restricted free speech because it
curtailed the ability of political candidates and
parties to buy advertising.
So, in effect advertising is speech in the political
context and may very likely be held to be free speech
in this context as well.


--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:


I agree with Dale that just because the people want it
doesn't mean they should always get it. Especially
when it violates the constitution. That was the reason
that we established a constitution, to protect what is

However, I don't agree that telemarketing is a form of
freedom of speech. Bottomline, it is more like
"advertising". I don't think it is a right to
advertise in anyway, anywhere or anyplace you wish. I
think telephone companies should crack down on the
telemarketers like internet companies crack down on
spammers. I find it more annoying to getting
telemarketers calling than spam. 

In almost every type of advertising there is some kind
of consent by the viewer. In telemarketing there is no
consent of any kind. 

I don't view reasonable restrictions on advertising as
a violation of the Constitution.

Donovan J Arnold


>From: "Dale Courtney" 

>To: "'Vision2020'" 

>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] "Do Not Call" bill passes 

>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:30:43 -0700 


>Tex chastised me: 

> > I think you are losing sight of one thing. The
people have 

> > demanded this. 

> > The people are the government last I checked. 


>Recall that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a
Democracy. In fact, one 

>of the things that scared our Founding Fathers to
death was a pure 



>So, while we may jump up and down and pass all the
laws we want, we cannot 

>pass a law that violates the 1st Amendment without
repealing the 1st 



>What I *really* think is at the heart of this law is
whether it violates the 

>1st Amendment. If it does (and I think it does), then
it's unlawful -- even 

>if the House & Senate passed it and the President
signed it. 


>Therefore, it will be (rightfully) struck down by the






> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 

> http://www.fsr.net 

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com 


 Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0.
Download it now FREE! 
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.    

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search