Posted on 11/11/2003 10:23:26 AM PST by 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.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
There's no freaking way that is his real number. That's why his previous post of that number was pulled. Now, he could publish name, address, phone number, and other authenticating information, verified by FreeRepublic management, and then maybe we could be sure it was him. Maybe.
But anyone so blase about unsolicited harassment via telephone is sure as hell not to be trusted about something as simple as this.
Or you can toady up to the professor, that sounds like it might be easier for you.
That's an excellent list of the many ways I can adjust to the harassment of others. But I don't have to. It's my GD phone, and in the event one of them does fool me long enough to speak to me, they wither. Again, though, telemarketing harassment is a public nuisance, and the 'public nuisance' has been part of Anglo-saxon jurisprudence for hundreds of years.
P.S. It's 'held' not 'holded.'
Of course you do.
You also think that having a front door to anyone's house means that you can stand there and ring the doorbell all day, that you can walk side by side with anyone on the street where ever they go trying to sell your crap, that you have a "right" to continually try hacking anyone's computer all day because they're on-line, and you can stand peering into anyone's windows since they have the windows in their house and car.
There are plenty of laws to stop these invasions of privacy, too. These are the protections provided by the government because other idiots with your thought processes can't fit into what would otherwise be a freer society.
Because you demand to have computer calls blocked by your local phone company. They then demand that any other company they connect to identify such calls. It's a pretty simple market solution, I'm surprised so many people ignore it.
By his 'logic' having a home with door locks creates my zone of safety and privacy, meaning that whenever I step outside of my home, I'm waiving expectations of safety and privacy, and thus inviting creeps to accost me or assault me or (attempt to) take my wallet, etc.
Like I said, not much 'logic' there.
I guess I don't let telemarketers bother me. I just hang up on them if I get one on the phone. Like I've said, I don't rush to answer the phone. I will answer it on my schedule.
Hate to staunch the flow of your bleeding heart, but it is not my lookout to provide these pests with jobs. I pay for a private phone for my own convience to contact people I choose to talk to. I do not pay for some smuck to take advantage of my bought and paid for private convience to attempt to sell me something I have no interest in. I do not want my privacy invaded by some pest trying to sell me insurance, a phone service, a credit card, or light bulbs.
I'm not stupid, if I want to change insurance companies I know how to look for the best deal, if I want light bulbs I'll go to the store and buy them. Now get off my back and don't call me.=o)
I'm glad that works for you. For fifty-million Americans, that solution is not acceptable. I'm one of them.
You know what, though? I live in a home with four incoming telephone lines, and we have not placed ANY of them on the Federal Do Not Call list. As I've described, I police it myself, and I'm down to about five calls a month, total over four lines.
But I applaud the FDNC list because it is a reasonable response to a public nuisance. If I need it, I'll sign us up.
That is harassment, I think local government can reasonably judge and enforce those cases. I will gladly cede to their authority
There are plenty of laws to stop these invasions of privacy, too. These are the protections provided by the government because other idiots with your thought processes can't fit into what would otherwise be a freer society.
You are implying we need laws to enforce politeness (or outlaw rudeness) which are the prerequisite for a free society. I don't think that will work and still have a free society. That's not even mentioning the problems of having a Federal bureaucracy enforcing the politeness laws.
I'm tryin' to CALL you!!!!
However, you don't think the rest of us non-government, freedom-loving types can reasonably judge when we don't want to be harassed by you telemarketers.
Yours is the minority opinion. You should spend some time imaging how you might be wrong.
Here's a hint: crank calls (unsolicited and useless nuisance calls) have been illegal for decades. 'Telemarketing' is no different.
How do you and your cohorts know I don't want your crappy products or fraudulent services? Simple. I didn't ask for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.