"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs

Cato Institute ^ | various | Various

[LowCountryJoe]

According to The Los Angeles Times, "Last summer, the federal government announced a national registry for consumers who want to block telemarketers from calling them. Americans rushed to sign up.

"Of the nation's 166 million residential numbers, 51 million are now off-limits to telemarketers. Despite ongoing court challenges, the list went into effect last month.

"The crackdown might be welcomed by consumers, but not by telemarketers like Millican, many of whom survive on the economic fringe. The nation has lost 2.6 million jobs in two years, and the 'do not call' list is expected to put hundreds of thousands more people out of work."

In "Like It Or Not, Free Speech Protects Telemarketers, Too", Cato's Robert Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, argues that "when government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls. That's what the First Amendment means. Free speech is not subject to plebiscite, no matter how many millions sign up for no-call. [Supreme Court] Justice William Brennan got it right: 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"

[Legerdemain]

You didn't buy a virtual door. I did (cell phone with no unsolicited calls). You want your virtual door provided free of charge


???? I got unsolicited calls on my cell before the DNC list. In fact, put that number on the list...

[meyer]

You ran from this before, so I will say it again in different words. What makes you think 2 million people who earned there living telemarketing were useless, either to themselves, the business community or their customers. I know why you don't answer it. You can't because you remark is stupid. I have faith that someday you too will learn this.

I don't recall that being asked before. Perhaps you used the wrong punctuation .... again.

I told you that telemarketers are useless. I also explained that while they may bring about a good bottom line for their employer, they share some commonality with thieves and other n'er-do-wells - they take people's hard-earned cash and give them nothing or little in return. They coerce people into buying useless junk that those people would otherwise not buy. They interrupt the peace of the home. They tresspass. They convince democrats that they may have voted wrong. It takes a special kind of sickness to try to defend those actions.

Is there a government list for tresspassers? I think not. Aren't you going over the dep end here? You are. Guess you just don't realize it. Going to the government to solve you imaginary problems is a classic Democratic symptom. Better check your voter registration. Who knows what else you are doing while you aren't looking.

Were you born this dense or did you hit your head on something really hard as a youth. Show me where I stated that there is a government list for trespassers. Telemarketers are trespassing on my phone line, just as one might trespass on other forms of private property. The police enforce tresspassing laws of other sorts. The do-not-call list simply creates the means of allowing enforcement when the trespasser uses the phone line. How can you not understand such a simple concept?

That's easy. Cut your phone line off at your property line. No problems. The telephone system is something we all share for all sorts of reasons. You just want to use the parts I use without letting others use the parts you use.

We share the network, but the line from the network to the phone is a distinctly private piece of equipment which belongs to the homeowner. You may use the network as you wish just as you may walk or drive down the street as you wish. But when you call my number without my permission, just as when you walk through my yard or use my driveway without permission, you are trespassing. Your "disconnecting" idea is analogous to disconnecting ones' lot from the road. You are confusing publicly used phone lines with private phone equipment. There is a line of demarcation, but you pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh yes there is. As far as I am concerned, you can hang a hundred 'do-not-solicit' signs on your phone when I call. I have no problem with that. I don't care how many of those are on it when I call as long as you aren't too rude or stupid to answer your phone like a human being. Even if your aren't, I'll try some other time in the off-hand chance you have learned a little more about taking care of your self in a civilized manner.

Pretty telling of just the kind of person you are. That should go far in convincing people that the "do-not-call" list is a bad idea.

[Redcloak]

How would these pro-marketers like it if, instead of their phone, they drove down the street with a big loudspeakers on their truck with their pitch at high volume?

Worse yet, how about hearing that pitch shrieking at them over loudspeakers that they paid for?!?

[Legerdemain]

Hey, we have this all wrong, there should be an opt in list, not an opt out list...now this would be the better way to do it....

[meyer]

Hey, we have this all wrong, there should be an opt in list, not an opt out list...now this would be the better way to do it....

Actually, we should have "opt-in" with a lot of things including this. Consider all the data that is shared these days. Privacy isn't so private any more.

[ImpBill]

right on. If the telemarketers what to pay for a good portion of my telephone standard fees I wll gladly take my name from the "do not call" list and continue hanging up on them.

[Wolfhound777]

Just wait until we hear of the class action lawsuits where 'victims' win $100 million dollar settlements, the lawyers representing the victims get half of it, and the whole shenanigan costs the American taxpayer the entire amount. "Why?" you ask. Trial costs, maybe a few chapter 13 bankruptcies, maybe insurers picking up the tab will increase their premiums on the other small business owners. One thing is for sure: trial lawyers aren't typically conservative. In the end, a good conservative or 'troll' in my case, has to ask themself, "Is this something the federal government should be getting involved in?"

You couldn't find a jury in the entire country that would award one cent to a telemarketer.

[BADROTOFINGER]

I have a life, and it involves working graveyard shifts. These excrement heads call at all hours of the day, and usually call back right after I have told them 'no' becuase they are too stupid to keep track of what number they just called. Perhaps you could give me your phone number, and I could repeatedly call you between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am your time? Then you might have some understanding of the people that you tell to 'get a life'...JFK

[gitmo]

This is not a free speech issue. The telemarketers can speak all they want. Just don't call me without permission. Same thing for obscene callers.

[FixitGuy]

"In "Like It Or Not, Free Speech Protects Telemarketers, Too", Cato's Robert Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, argues that "when government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls."

That's just a load of crap!

Since when is my right to not hear from some peddler a 1st amendment issue.

Is my right to go and kill them also protected by the 1st amendment?

It always amazes me how these think tanks and proffessors can distort the constitution (and truth) so it fits with their belief system.

Absolutely NO ONE may come into my home through the door or the telephone unless they're invited!

And that's all I have to say about THAT!

[FixitGuy]

"If 50 million people have signed up for this do not call list, isn't safe to say that all them (including me) never purchase anything from these unsolicited phone calls? So by implementing the list, we are doing these telemarketing firms a favor by better defining their target market. They'll save plenty of $$ on wasted phone calls."

I have made exactly the same argument on other threads..

Why would any reputable business person want to call someone who states in advance that they are not a prospect, and will be pi$$ed if you call them???

[LowCountryJoe]

"...I honestly don't give a flying rat's backside what the annual report of these companies say. They are a public nuisance. I suppose that thieves and robbers have quite an impressive annual report as well. They also are a public nuisance. Both tend to separate people from their hard earned cash and generally give that person nothing of value in return..."

And you know what? Those telemarketers that are scumbags, they're really going to honor the "Do Not Call" list, aren't they?

[NELSON111]

"...the vast majority of people I spoke with assumed I had dark skin. Do you really think that people with such inane powers of judgement are competent to make decisions by themselves? I really don't.

The framers of the constitution did...Marx didn't. We are a representative republic and the representatives of that republic understand ENOUGH to know that people don't want these phone calls by a large margin.

I am biased towards my opinion...because I don't like getting up to 10+ phone calls a day on the phone line I own on the phone service I PAY FOR. I have too much to do when I get home from work to answer phone calls from people I don't want calling me...and no...I don't care if it puts them out of work. Why? I don't want the "service." I have that right as a consumer...like it or not.

The lines in my house are MINE. I own them. Unless I pay the phone company insurance each month (a few bucks)...I have to pay for them to fix it if it goes bad (or I do it myself). It is my phone line in my house...so people I want to stay off of it should...and that is what my representative heard (and most of them!). You of course are biased to your opinion because this is your business. Understandable. Stinks to be you. However, your freedom of speech stops at my property line...and those phone lines in my house are MY PROPERTY...as is the PHONE. So...please stay off of my property and stop wasting my time. The do not call list is a way of telling you to stay of my property (remember...I OWN IT!)...just like a sign hung on the fence.

As I stated to someone else...if it no big deal for someone to call you at home or work to harass you...post both of your numbers here and now so we can all call you (even the lurkers...maybe they have something you need that you haven't thought of!). Post your phone numbers now...or you are just a big hypocrite.

[stands2reason]

Do you have a phone?

[meyer]

And you know what? Those telemarketers that are scumbags, they're really going to honor the "Do Not Call" list, aren't they?

Can you say "prosecute"?

[HighWheeler]

Welcome to FR, Newbie. And a telemarketer to boot. Sheesh.

I'll tell you what. After you lose your job as a less-than-useless-telemarketer, you can come over and do some respectable work around my house, actually adding value to the world, mmmkay?

We all have free speech, but your bullsh*t argument of a right to "free" speech doesn't obligate me to have to listen, got it?

I am NOT on the "national do not call list". Here's what I do instead. I sucker you clowns into thinking I'm an easy mark be acting as if I like you. Then, once you get going on your free speech, I set the phone down and let you yak while you entertain my dog listening. Minutes later when I hear the phone beeping, I know the repulisve idiot who called me has finally hung up.

I have only had 3 calls in the last 10 months.

[TexasCajun]

We all have free speech, but your bullsh*t argument of a right to "free" speech doesn't obligate me to have to listen, got it?

Great minds think alike. I couldn't have said it better.

[madison10]

Telemarketing, the way that it has been done in the past ten years or so, IS HARASSMENT.

Then don't sign up for phone service, it's not an entitlement.

It's an "entitlement" if I pay for it! Just like I'd have the right to turn away a door-to-door salesperson on MY front steps. Telemarketing is harassment, especially when it's high volume. The telemarketers have no right to bring their voice into my home.

[HighWheeler]

Hi TexasCajun, glad to know you have a great mind too!

Now, where is that leetle weezle hiding?

[LowCountryJoe]

Tiki wrote: "...Don't forget, the government didn't force anyone to get on the list..."

Ahh, but don't forget that same government WILL FORCE you, the taxpayer, to pay for the administration and enforcement. Enforcement? Yes, you know, the cost to pursue, build evidence, and have trials for the people who violate the law. And yes, even those people who have been accused but not are not really guilty of violation. I guess the verdict is in; the majority of us on this board would rather just have another government program.

Next question, which line number of the federal budget do we include this under. Cut and paste that address and you might see my concerns about government involvement.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/fct_2.xls ^