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 ...
But the phone lines to your house are on your property and they are not yours. They are the property of a private though well regulated company, and you can't make a phone call without passing over the system which telemarketing makes a major contribution to supporting. They support you calling, but you would deprive them of supporting themselves. If you phone network was private, you could limit it's use, but you can't. You are, however. free to disconnect your phone and not let anyone call you on it. You are also free to set up a private phone network so that you can make your calls without financially bleeding off of others, but you won't, because you it wouldn't be affordable.
Marie Antoinette said 'let them cake.' You are saying 'let them eat cake, but give me the bread off their tables first.'
Of course it's not an entitlement. WE PAY FOR IT! Jeeezzzz! Think a little bit before you post.
No, they're not restricting commerce. In this case, there is no commerce, nor would/could there be any commerce. Why can't you understand? I don't want the Goddamned call, and I'm certainly not buying anything from a paid, serial harasser.
You paid for a service that allows anyone to call you. Demanding a more restrictive service from the government is asking for an entitlement.
If the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply, then you need to provide a Constitutional justification for Federal intervention.
Got it. You don't want the fee to reduce calls, you want the fee so Uncle Sugar won't restrict the calls for fear of lost revenue.
That's no different than a bribe to Uncle Sugar to prevent the public will (the FDNC list) from becoming law.
One more time...just who here is supposed to be in favor of greater government involvement?
I did not say the commerce clause did not apply, I'm saying that the wooden-headed bastards in telemarketing don't understand that people who say they don't want to be called actually mean THEY DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED.
Y'all are attempting to engage in interstate commerce, and are subject to Federal regulation, no matter how unlikely/impossible actually engaging in interstate commerce during a crank call might be.
My problem is why you can't understand that if 50 million people say 'Don't bother calling, I will not buy,' you still insist on the 'right' to make the call.
Oh, a Libertarian. No wonder you're so incorrigibly annoying.
Sleep well on your government regulated mattress, dreamer!
No.
A hitchhiker is not entitled to force you to pick him up. Just because someone wants to talk to you doesn't mean that you have to listen. By using the phone to contact you, you have been forced to listen when you didn't want to.
No.
A hitchhiker is not entitled to force you to pick him up. Just because someone wants to talk to you doesn't mean that you have to listen. By using the phone to contact you, you have been forced to listen when you didn't want to.
I agree completely with this (that's why I said in my post that this would be "fascism"). Just because (a bureaucrat decides) an industry is lame and pathetic doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Go up to someones's house at 4 am and knock on the door. When you are arrested tell the police that the occupant didn't have to answer the door, that he could have hired security, or that he could just have ignored the whole thing and no you are not needed here you pawns of the government.
Statement doesn't mean anything, as a telemarketer would lie.
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.