"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.'"

[LowCountryJoe]

I'm just rereading this post (#216) here:

"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."

Are you really this polite in real life? Or is it easy to spew this crap as you sit behind your computer and immune from civil conversation? I really want to know that answer, call me and let's discuss it. If you really are this miserable how do you get that dog of yours to play with you; by tying a pork chop around you neck? And one last thing, you should drop that "I'm smarter than you rhetoric", it's really unbecoming of a conservative and pretty tiring.

Now that I've got my retaliation out of the way, perhaps we should try being pleasant with each other. Or, maybe we'd like to continue trading insults. But wouldn't it actually be better to discuss the serious issues at hand?

[TexasCajun]

They used sequential dialers. They automaticaly dial next number higher, that way all numbers were dialed whether listed or not.

There is a product called the "Zapper" and it works on these computer generated calls. I have it and it works. It tricks the calling computer with a signal that indicates the number dialed is disconnect, no more calls from that computer.

[Modernman]

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

So, if criminals violate a law, we should scrap the law?

[Modernman]

Don't kid yourself. Many a gun range has been closed by noise complaints.

And you favor such closures?

It's a concept called 'nuisance,' which is a legal tort going back in common law to, oh, Norman times.

Without things like nuisance torts, anyone could do anything they want on their property, no matter how destructive it is to their neighbors' rights to enjoy their property. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Property lines are no different.

Do you favor living in a society where your neighbor can play his stereo at top volume 24 hours a day? Not even the most radical libertarian would think that's a good idea.

[Modernman]

Your analogy is wrong, the wire is equivalent to you leaving your door open with a come-on-in sign. You signed up for the service that allows the calls, that's your mistake.

Okay, following your reasoning, the FDNC list is an electronic "No Trespassing" sign I've just posted on my phone line. Anyone who violates the sign, just like anyone who violates a real no-trespassing sign, opens themselves up to legal consequences.

[palmer]

It's a concept called 'nuisance,' which is a legal tort going back in common law to, oh, Norman times.

Nuisance is local concept and local enforcement works for me. What the statists on this thread want is a Federal bureaucrat to define "nuisance" as a portion of a service that signed up for but don't like. Their phone service includes calls from anyone. There's no restrictions in their contract because they didn't pay for any restrictions. Then they decide they don't like that deal so they ask the politicians for a new deal. The politicians are only too happy to oblige and empower bureacrats to make determinations about what a nuisance is, which speech is protected, which is commercial, etc.

[palmer]

First you say it's nuisance, now you say it is trespassing. Others say it is harassment. These are all valid local concepts with possibilities for local enforcement. But you and the other statists grab a concept here and an idea there and turn it into Federal law. Nobody on this thread has stated what authority the Federal government has over a voluntary transactions such as you signing up for phone service.

[kevao]

But the phone lines to your house are on your property and they are not yours.

Wrong. At the point where the phone line enters your home, YOU own the line -- it's your property, your responsibility. I found this out the hard way.

If you don't believe me, call your phone company and tell them there's something wrong with the wiring inside your home; then ask whether there will be a charge for repairing the wire, and if so, why.

[palmer]

Nice to see you back Joe, don't give up! We all know this isn't about any legal concepts. The legal case resembles a three legged stool with all three legs shot out. The real issue is allowing the Federal goverment to legislate and enforce politeness. Telemarketers are rude. But some posters here are rude too. We listen to their insults and respond as politely as we can. There's no need for legislation in either domain.

[maineman]

It's a shame you have a bad attitude towards telemarketers. I saved 350.00 by switching auto insurance through a telephone sales person, refinanced my home (saving 2 points), had my windows replaced (saving over 1k from a construction quote) and the list goes on. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Teacher317]

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."

BS

[kevao]

I saved 350.00 by switching auto insurance...

Hey, are you that guy in the Geico commercial?

[Modernman]

Nuisance is local concept and local enforcement works for me

That statement would only be true if we lived in a world without telephones, fiber-optics etc. There is no real constitutional way for a state to regulate behavior coming from another state- there is just not enough jurisdiction. the federal government needs to step in in such a situation and the Commerce Clause gives it the power to do so. Perhaps if telemarketers only called people in their own state, we could rely on local enforcement. Are you saying there is no way to prosecute crimes that occur over state lines?

Their phone service includes calls from anyone. There's no restrictions in their contract because they didn't pay for any restrictions.

No, it doesn't. Phone service includes only legal phone calls- by signing up for a phone contract, you don't give up the right to charge/sue callers for illegal types of phone calls, such as threats, obscenity, intentional infliction of emotional distress etc. You cannot contract for illegal things. This is no different, a class of phone calls have been made illegal or actionable. Signing a contract with a phone company does not eliminate that illegality.

The politicians are only too happy to oblige and empower bureacrats to make determinations about what a nuisance is, which speech is protected, which is commercial, etc.

Courts do that, not bureacrats. There will be a few lawsuits on the subject, but eventually we'll know where the legal line is.

[utahagen]

I don't understand why so many people feel compelled to answer their phones. A few years ago, I got caller id, an answering machine, and a phone whose ringer can be turned off. When I go to bed, eat my dinner, or just want quiet, I turn the ringer off on my phone and pick up the messgaes later. When the ringer is on, I look at caller id and answer only those callers I recognize and feel like talking to. I'm irritated when I call someone and he answers, "Now is a bad time". I always think, "So why did you answer the phone?"

[Modernman]

First you say it's nuisance, now you say it is trespassing.

Actually, this type of behavior can be both, but it fits better into the category of trespass. By putting my name on the FDNC list, I've told telemarketers they are not welcome on my property, which consists of my phone and the lines I do use. If they violate my wishes, they commit trespass.

Note that any contract I signed with the phone company in no way applies to telemarketers- it just keeps me from suing the phone company. Telemarketers are not a party to my phone contract.

Nobody on this thread has stated what authority the Federal government has over a voluntary transactions such as you signing up for phone service.

That's a straw man argument- the feds are not exerting any authority over my voluntary transactions witht the phone company- my contract with them continues the same as always. Rather, they're using their Commerce Clause power to allow me, VOLUNTARILY, to sign up for a list. Who are you to say that I shouldn't have the right to sign up for the FDNC list?

[palmer]

Phone service includes only legal phone calls- by signing up for a phone contract, you don't give up the right to charge/sue callers for illegal types of phone calls, such as threats, obscenity, intentional infliction of emotional distress etc.

People don't like calls from telemarketers so that had them declared illegal. Now you want to justify a new federal entitlement (phone service without calls from telemarketers) because those calls were just declared illegal. Similarly, people don't like getting calls from their mothers-in-law (intential infliction of emotional distress) so they have those declared illegal.

All you are doing is rationalizing your dislike of telemarketers into various forms of law breaking. But your case (and everybody else's) is so weak, you have to keep switching from one law to another. So now "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is against Federal law.

[GSWarrior]

I bet the direct mail industry is picking up.

[Modernman]

It's a shame you have a bad attitude towards telemarketers. I saved 350.00 by switching auto insurance through a telephone sales person, refinanced my home (saving 2 points), had my windows replaced (saving over 1k from a construction quote) and the list goes on.

You're free to keep your name off the list and receive as many phone calls as you want from telemarketers. I'm not in favor of banning telemarketing outright. However, if I do not want to have my property used by telemarketers, why should I be forced to?

[palmer]

The Commerce Clause was created to allow the Federal government to override state restrictions on trade such as tariffs. Your contract with the phone company does include calls from anyone. Mine does too, but my cell provider makes an effort (through law suits) to prevent commercial solicitations. The only conceivable Federal role would be to override state restrictions on local service providers. There's no reason you shouldn't have a large choice of local service providers considering the technology available, is state boards who are primarily controlled by the local phone companies and prevent that competition.

[luckystarmom]

I can find deals by calling around myself at my convenience. No one is going to sell me anything if I'm in the middle of bathing my baby. No one is going to sell me anything if I'm waiting for a doctor to call me back. No one is going to sell me anything if they wake me up from a nap.