"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.'"

[Modernman]

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?"

Sure- this is regulation of interstate commerce, which is an enumerated power of the Federal government.

Telemarketers should have known this was coming- they've failed, for years, to police their own industry and limit abuses. Now, the government is going to regulate them. This is a result of telemarketers' own shortsightedness.

[TexasCajun]

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

entitlement? Isn't an entitlement paid for by someone other than myself?

...a service paid for by me for my use and benefit, not the benefit of some asshole tele-intruder.

All Americans, except you, should call their telephone provider and all request new UNPUBLISHED phone numbers then there wouldn't be a need for no stinking list.

[Let's Roll]

I don't care whether I have a "case" or not, I and millions and millions and millions of Americans just want to be left alone!

[VadeRetro]

We're talking about junk calls and junk callers here. If they die, they die.

[LowCountryJoe]

That's another thing that needs to go. NPR! And while were at it, all the C-SPANs. BTW, what makes you think i'm liberal? You're actually right on the money with that analysis. I'm a classical liberal (not a modern one), who believes in the the free market, supply side economics, and the ideals of Milton Friedman.

So, TexasCajun, have you ever read "Capitalism and Freedom"? In fact, DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST CAREFULLY!

[palmer]

Isn't an entitlement paid for by someone other than myself?

You didn't pay for a line without unsolicited calls. I pay more for that service along with more accurate caller ID. Higher prices and unemployment insurance premiums are how I will end up paying for your entitlement.

[Indy Pendance]

I do not want to be on any more government lists than necessary and will not sign up for this either. That include the state and federal lists. It's not the governments responsibility to protect us from telemarketeers. And why is ok for the government to approve of junk mail, sent by a government entity, but can justify a list for junk calls? The government is already too evasive in our lives. Some folks just won't get it until it's too late, like liberals in charge and use that list for nefarous purposes.

[Oberon]

If the "poorest" people lose the jobs in which they are paid to endlessly harass me at my home, then screw 'em.

Let them find honest work.

[palmer]

Then disconnect or pay for a better service.

[The Clemson Tiger]

What you've actually done is lobbied the government to put an agent in your front yard to fine solicitors without even bothering to buy a sign.

I prefer tax cuts over new bureaucracy Is your point that we don't pay for it, or that we do pay for it? Apparently both...

[palmer]

I agree, the fewer bureaucrats, the better.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Isn't sad that N.Y. City "took away" the **jobs** of the people who would spit on the windshields of cars then ask the driver for money to clean it off? Yes, such sad, sad, Tommy Dachle sad, situations...

Not!!!

Harassment is not a right. I pay a monthly bill for my phone service telemarkerters don't. They have no "right" to use my phone if I don't want them to. Just as they have no right to trespass on my property to harass me about buying something.

[xm177e2]

This report assumes that telemarketing must be good for our economy merely because there are jobs in it. But how are those jobs supported? Where does the telemarketers' money come from? The ones who aren't actually cheating customers outright generally prey on old and gullible people (telemarketers are an awful lot like televangelists). I don't think that's a healthy part of our economy. It's dead weight.

I don't think the gov't should be shutting down industries just because they are bad for our nation as a whole (that would be fascism), but I don't think you can make a real defense of telemarketing on the grounds that it is beneficial to our economy.

[palmer]

I pay for your entitlement. I prefer not to, but you and millions of other people lobbied to make me.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

'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.'"

The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to demand that someone pay attention to you no matter what you say. CATO's all wet on this one.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

My friend was a successful telemarketer (no jobs when he got out of college). He is very honest and soft-spoken.

Not saying there isn't the rare company where one can be genuinely honest and genuinely care about the customer and succeed. But I suspect such a company is rare.

And in telecommunications, perhaps nonexistent.

In any competitive industry (and telecom is one), you have to lie or color the truth in order to provide enough incentive in order both to overcome suspicion of the telemarketer, and for anybody to want to take the risk of switching to you. Especially in telecom, where people have been burned plenty of times before.

That's not to say you can't eke out a living. But as far as being one of the richly-rewarded top producers, forget it.

[all4one]

Same at my house...the telemarketers find out...my children are aware...but my husband has yet to agree!

[palmer]

I pay a monthly bill for my phone service

You haven't paid for solicitation-free service. That costs more, but it wouldn't cost much more if the government didn't over-regulate phone service to begin with. A problem created by state regulations is now "solved" with federal regulations.

[Jack of all Trades]

I have several real doors on my house. I bought them just like I bought my phone. I pay a fee for their continued use (property taxes) similar to my arrangement with the phone company for their services. If I were to hang a No Soliciting sign on it I would expect it to be obeyed. So far I've found no need to do this because my town requires door to door solicitors to get a permit. Yes, the town is acting as an agent on my behalf by regulating people who want to hawk crap on my front porch.

[lovecraft]

but my husband has yet to agree!

Why does that not suprise me...:-)