Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List 446
The Ghetto Imp writes "According to CNN Money, the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of telemarketing companies, which were claiming that the do-not-call list violated their free speech rights. "
Keep in Mind... (Score:5, Informative)
Next list! (Score:2, Informative)
DO-NOT-USE-IE [donotcall.gov]
The damn form doesn't work unless you use IE. Fools!
- Kevin
"Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List" ... WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court has held in the past that a denial of cert is not in any way an endorsement of the appeals court's ruling. Only a small fraction of applications for cert are actually granted by the Court.
It is still possible that another lower court (outside of the 10th Circuit) could hold the Do-Not-Call List unconstitutional. Hopefully, any other court would find the 10th Circuit's opinion persuasive... but unless such a court is actually in the 10th Circuit, they are not required to follow the ruling.
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:3, Informative)
I walked out the door.
Re:Victory, for now (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. From EPIC (Score:3, Informative)
* Title III: Requires probable cause, a high legal standard to meet, from a judge for real-time interception of the content of voice and data communications. See EPIC's Wiretapping Page.
* Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Governs government access to stored email and other electronic communications. Within ECPA, the Pen Register statute governs real time interception of "numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached." Although the use of such devices requires a court order, it does not require probable cause: there is no judicial discretion, and the court must authorize the surveillance upon government certification. A government attorney need only certify to the court that the "information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Therefore, the Pen Register and Trap and Trace statute lacks many of the privacy protections found in the wiretap statute.
* Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Authorizes the government to carry out electronic surveillance -- against any person, even Americans -- in the United States upon obtaining a judicial order based upon probable cause that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. FISA, which applies primarily to the government's power in foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence cases, therefore does not offer many of the protections required under the federal wiretap statute. See EPIC's FISA Page.
Title III governs the "contents" of communications, defined as "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." The Supreme Court has held that the contents of a communication are entitled to full Fourth Amendment protection. Therefore, the government's access to "content" information is limited by constitutionally imposed search and seizure requirements. In order to abide by these constitutional restrictions, Title III imposes strict limitations upon the government's ability to obtain communication content:
* a law enforcement agency may intercept content only pursuant to a court order issued upon findings of probable cause to believe that
1. an individual is committing one of a list of specifically enumerated crimes,
2. communications concerning the specified offense will be intercepted, and
3. "the pertinent facilities are commonly used by the alleged offender or are being used in connection with the offense."
* Only designated officials can authorize such interception,
* The interception is authorized for a limited time period.
* Interception is subject to a statutory exclusionary rule: any information intercepted in violation of the wiretap statute cannot be admitted into evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutionally recognized privacy interest in the telephone numbers intercepted by a pen register or trap and trace device. In U.S. v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), the Supreme Court emphasized the limited information captured by pen register devices: "neither the purport of any communication between the caller and the recipient of the call, their identities, nor whether the call was even completed is disclosed by pen registers." This is reflected in the ease with which law enforcement officers are able to obtain trap and trace/pen register installation: upon the certification by an attorney that pen register information is likely to be relevant, the judge must approve the installation of the device.
Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions
Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore
Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the statute authorizing the u
Whereas in Canada... (Score:2, Informative)
you misunderstand (Score:5, Informative)
I would submit to you that by the term free speech, the constitutional framers (and smart judges) interpreted to mean the free exchange and discourse of intellectual ideas between people and institutions, unrestrained by prior interference by the state.
People calling me to sell products is not exactly the free exchange of intellectual ideas -- they just want to hawk their wares. That's why the no-call list doesn't include political organizations, etc. which *are* in the business of discussing ideas with people.
This sounds like cert denied (Score:5, Informative)
That is different from the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal--very different. It does NOT mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court. They may, for instance, think that the issue needs more consideration in other lower courts before they take it.
Re:Question on the do-not-call-list (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but more to the point it's the same government that holds itself exempt from the Do-Not-Call list.
KFG
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:2, Informative)
The administration's role in passing a bill is defined in the constitution. If the Pres. doesn't sign the bill, nothing becomes of it.. so I'd say that yes the current administration did help pass it, by completing the final action to make it a law.
The supreme court only deals with things after they are put into law, not before. Please try to understand the constitution.
End Political Spam (Score:3, Informative)
I'm actually surprised the SC has taken this popular, but problematic approach.
I predict that telemarketers will all go into "legitimate" businesses, such as raising money for cancer, communists, boy scouts, lesbian child care co-ops, and in short any tenable proposition.
In failing to insist on full content neutrality, the SC has opened the door on a dual standard - one for ("them") people who earn money the honest way, and one for ("us politicians") who earn money by taxing those in the first group.
This "dual standard" approach is now the standard, and some state laws have been changed today as a result of this ruling. NC law 14-399 for example declares as litter everything except what the SC says is protected speach. The SC has just upheld "Content-Specific" rules for discriminating against certain kinds of speach, so as a result, NC law now supports "Content-Specific" definitiongs for littering - what a headache.
AIK
DNC DOS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let's end the other BS... trying to in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
I say that those in the legislative branch are kneejerk reactionaries. They are, because they have to be. They have to be sensative to everything that goes on, and usually overreact to a situation to appear as if they are "tough" on an issue, or weren't slacking off on the issue before it became important, i.e. terrorism. A representative's position is up for re-election every 2 years. They have to be on top of every minor complaint any of their constituants brings up, after all, dissappoint a constituant, and that is a vote against you (along with everyone they tell). Senators have a bit more cushion, after all, they have a longer term at 6 years. Also, they cover more area and constiuants, so they can afford to piss off someone on the south side, and still remain strong with their base on the north side. The goal of course is to be more concerned about long term health of the country, but they can be kneejerk reactionaries as well when something really important happens to the country.
In the judicial branch, things are a bit different. And while local judges may be elected, most in the federal government are appointed based on their track record as a judge. Therefore they can make "unpopular" decisions, and strike down legislation without fear of being voted out of office.
Take for instance the COPA legislation (Child Online Protection Act). A very popular bill with both legislators and a certain portion of the constituants whom they represent. Yet every version that has been tested in a court of law has been struck down so far. The legislative branch passes a new version, it goes to trial, and is struck down as being unconstitutional. The judges are free to rule in favor of defending the constitution without fear of retaliation from those who are upset with their unpopular decision. They can defend the constitution when the legislature has failed to defend it.
Re:legislation vs judicial (Score:3, Informative)
Er, no. The legislation in question was passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like the little flowchart in your Civics 101 textbook describes. The Court simply declined to listen to the telemarketers' claims that the law was unconstitutional (and, IMO, properly so, given the flimsiness of the "constitutional" argument).
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:5, Informative)
The ruling you're probably alluding to, Doe v. Ashcroft [aclu.org], has not yet reached the Supreme Court. The decision reported in the news last week was handed down by Judge Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [uscourts.gov].
If the government chooses to appeal, it must first bring its case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [uscourts.gov] (the 2nd Circuit is a geographical division that includes New York.) The loser there can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case - it has thousands of petitions and can only hear a few dozen each term.
If, as in the do-not-call case, the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case (denies cert), the decision of the lower court stands. This shouldn't be read as an affirmative decision of the Court to favor one side of the issue or not, just a deference to the judgment of the circuit courts coupled with an inability to hear every case that goes up.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Informative)
England is a very different matter of course.
Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK (Score:3, Informative)
The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].
Don't Talk About Constitutional Rights... (Score:4, Informative)
These are the two parts you need to understand. The Fourth Amendment......and the Ninth Amendment...These describe how the right to privacy already exists, and how the Constitution prevents laws that abrogate that right.
Virg