Posted on 09/25/2003 4:10:17 PM PDT by Hotdog
I would have no objection to the phone lines not being used to transmit pornography, but that's hardly relevant to doing legitimate business over the phone, particularly when 20 billion a year is done alone in my state.
So if the porn industry made 50 billion in telemarketing in your state, would you support it? Not to mention that telemarketing is not being banned.
The trick to getting on in life is learning to deal with reality. The porn business does not make 50 billion a year telemarketing in my state, and even if it did, yes, I would be for shutting it down.
The trick to getting on with business is to run a business that makes your customers happy. Unfortunately, these telemarketing businesses never realized that. Now they will. Just like limiting the strip club in your neighborhood with city codes (such as recently involved in LA), the people want limit the telemarketing industry. Fair is Fair
I don't. I would if the telephone were the only means at these marketers disposal. However, no one says they must be "tele"marketers. Let them present their products to me by taking out ads in the newspapers, buying time on radio and television, renting billboard space, sending people out with sandwich boards, etc.
The marketers have plenty of "speech" venues other than my telephone.
Neither CNN, not telemarketers are on your private property. You chose to installed devises that enables their communication, and you’re unhappy that it doesn’t discriminate to your satisfaction.
Perhaps the cable company will cooperate in blocking CNN, but if you put an antena in the air, nothing stops CBS from communication onto your private property.
Numbers in associations to challenge the Bill of rights are irrelevant until they are sufficient to change the Constitution. If 50 million choose not to speak to Christians, the Bill of Rights prevents government from organizing and enforcing a Christian do not call list.
“A principle is not a principle until it cost you something.”- Dr Laura.
Channels stop communication to my property. Maybe we should have telemarketing channels on our phones.
With television, advertising is passive and non-intrusive. The television does not periodically raise an alarm and require that I stop whatever I'm doing to ascertain whether a news broadcast or an ad is being transmitted. That's the difference.
Telemarketing is trespassing for the purposes of soliciation, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever.
Neither CNN, not telemarketers are on your private property. You chose to installed devises that enables their communication, and you’re unhappy that it doesn’t discriminate to your satisfaction.
CNN, CBS and telemarketers choose devices that enable their communications accross public property and in the case of telemarketers, accross public and private property -- the private property being the phone lines that tranverse accross public property and the phone lines that transverse accross private property -- that being our homes.
The telemarketer does not have a right to unlimited commerical speech on public property, the telemarketer does not have the right to harrassing speech on public property and the telemarketer does not have the right to free speech on private property.
The individual who wishes to limit the speech of telemarketers accross an electronically segmented public phone line -- the portion of the phone line that is on public property and is destined specifally for that individual has every right to do so, regardless if that speech is harrassing or not. It has NO effect on others who wish to receive telemarketing calls accross their segment of public property.
Numbers in associations to challenge the Bill of rights are irrelevant until they are sufficient to change the Constitution. If 50 million choose not to speak to Christians, the Bill of Rights prevents government from organizing and enforcing a Christian do not call list.
If 1 person or 50 million choose not to allow a Christian or a Muslim or a Jewish person or some swarmy slaesman into their house, then the government and specifically the BOR does condone and enforce Freedom of Association.
Exactly, and as I explained to those on that side of the debate, the only reason the first amendment was brought up was because the legislation gave preference to charities. In other words, this judge said it does not violate free speech, but giving charities a break would be discriminating.
Example: making slander against the law does not violate free speech but saying that the media can slander all they want freely would be a violation of the 1st amendment because it gives preference.
Good afternoon. Yes, one is not free to verbally harrass somebody in public and is certainly not free to harrass somebody on somebody else's private property.
It’s a signal, not an “alarm”, and you are not “required” to do anything. You chose to activate your phone knowing that you live in a free country where anyone can attempt to call you and where the government isn’t authorized to limit them for purposes of solicitation, political persuasion, ministry etc…, even if it annoys you.
“Occasionally being annoyed is the price of democracy” - unknown.
A company PBX is a private system. When you connect your phone to Bell South , it’s on a public system (or at least a Bell South system). You knew that when you connected it.
Telemarketing is not “harassment”. It’s solicitation. You just find it annoying.
If Bell South chooses to block communication, that’s their right. It the Government chooses to do so, even at your request, it’s a restriction on the telemarketer’s right to speak freely in public.
If so, excellent. I've long been an advocate of two or three lists. Commercial, political, and charitable. Give us the right to ban all three.
Besides the commercial businesses are already getting around the law by having giveaways, thus they are calling under the charitable exemption.
I think it's not the phone company's business that some subscribers pay for such service. I don't want it but it's a big business and provides a lot of jobs. The difference is, the phone customer is *purchasing* the service and not being solicited without permission.
So if the porn industry made 50 billion in telemarketing in your state, would you support it? Not to mention that telemarketing is not being banned.
I don't support *any* unsolicited telemarketing especially in the case of where I'm paying money to avoid it.
It might be unconstitutional, but then the federal government doesn't collect property taxes. States do. And states were collecting property taxes before the feds were even a glimmer.
The alternative would be for state governments to put a toll booth outside your house and charge you everytime you use the road. Administration of taxes would be a lot more expensive.
The states would also have to charge you for sending your kids to school. That wouldn't be all bad, at least we could choose some non-state schools with decent morals. On the other hand, it is in the nation's best interest to have all kids educated, so how do you fund poor kids education?
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.