|
|
On 4-Jul-2005, "Mike Turco" <miketurcoNO@yahooSPAM.com> wrote:
quote:
> I don't think the first amendment was created to allow people to interrupt
>
> your evenings with sales calls over the phone or to fill up your e-mail
> box
> with tons of spam. While we are not yet totally free of such annoyances,
> Caller ID and Spam Blocking software, in combination with some level of
> regulation, have helped a lot.
IMO an "annoyance isn't justification to squelch mass communication. For a
price this can be done despite present law. The key being "for a price."
quote:
>
> There are many inexpensive ways to legitimately advertise products and
> services.
Such as?
quote:
>Those who aren't considerate of others in their marketing
> efforts,
> _especially_ spammers, are usually less than worthy to enter into a
> transaction or business agreement of any sort. People with legitimate
> businesses have products and services that are priced out to include
> advertising costs and the like.
I get spammed and telemarketed by major corporations too. The largest
judgment so far was against ATT. To suggest that only illegitimate
businesses employ these marketing practices is absurd. If you want to get
fundamentalist about then say, "word of mouth advertising is the only
legitimate form of advertising." You're of course free to draw your own
personal line in the sand. But don't impose that on everyone.
quote:
>People with legitimate
> businesses have products and services that are priced out to include
> advertising costs and the like.
Yes we all pay the price for this sort of legislation. Is it no wonder that
advertising money is now going overseas to countries like China and India?
quote:
> Does this mean that you can't start a business on a small budget? Of
> course
> not. You just have to work a bit harder
That's the bottom line. Make it harder on small business. You seem to
understand the effect but not the cause.
quote:
>because there have been significant efforts to reduce the amount of "be
>rude and push yourself in someone's
> face for free" sales methodologies.
Rude is in the eye of the receiver. If it didn't work, it wouldn't continue.
In practice there must be many out there who respond to this sort of
advertising. Which is evidence that the Government isn't responding to the
wishes of the consumer, but to special interest groups. The Vietnam war was
the ultimate in "rude" in the eyes of the majority but you didn't see them
responding to the wishes of the people. But they DO respond to the people
who won't buy a $20 answering machine or use throw away e-mail addresses?
Can't you see there's something wrong with that picture?
quote:
> As to who lobbied for and against such regulation, as well as their
> ultimate
> motive, is questionable on both sides of the fence. Sometimes good things
> happen as a result to the insincere or inappropriate action of others.
> Such
> is G-d's world.
G-d or "good" has nothing to do with this legislation. Being that you're not
spelling out the name of G-d, you must be educated in Torah or Kaballah. You
know who rules this world. If you don't maybe you need to expand your
studies.
Eph 6:12 For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but
against persons without bodies-the evil rulers of the unseen world, those
mighty satanic beings and great evil princes of darkness who rule this world
2 Cor 4:3 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see...
John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world
is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me.
Eph 2:2 You went along with the crowd and were just like all the others,
full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air, who
is at work right now in the hearts of those who are against the Lord.
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.
"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
Warmest regards,
Steve Horrillo, Realtor / C.Ht.
http://BrokerAgentTraining.com http://over100percent.com http:/HipFSBO.com
http://eLOWn.com
|
|