Like It Or Not, Free Speech Protects Telemarketers

[Jodi]

RS said:

You have the right to tell someone to get off your property, or to not answer the door, but when someone calls you, they are not on your property.

In a very real sense, yes, they are on your property. Technology absolutely has to change the meaning of the word "property" from simply land and goods. In the same way that "intellectual property" like songs and written materials are still property.

Further, you have more than a right to not answer the door or tell them to leave- you have the right to post a No Trespassing sign and have it enforced legally. A No Call list is essentially a high-tech "No Trespassing" sign.

Secondly, you keep ignoring this point for some reason, but you have a right to tell somebody not to call you. If they call you anyway, it's harassment.

My only opposition to the government is in securing rights against it's invasion, so you can't separate the two.

Well, you deem pretty much all forms of regulation "invasion", so my point stands.

Also, they don't have the right to call you if the phone company tells them not to, any more than McDonald's has the right to advertise on NBC if NBC refuses to air their ads. You have a right to speech, but no entitlement to the means of distribution, outside voluntary agreement or self-promotion.

Indeed. And they don't have an inherent right to spread their message via the telephone system to those who don't want them to call.

As it is, the phone company owns those lines, and can regulate them any way they wish. That is why they can contractually oblige their customers to not call people who choose not to be called.

You're looking at this backwards. The issue isn't one of what the telemarketers do on the lines owned by their telelphone service provider- it's about the rights of those who receive the call.

Also, your solution is no solution, because it offers no protection for those being harassed by the telemarketer. All the marketing company has to do is find a telephone service provider that doesn't care whom they call, as long as they're paying their bills (which would be, likely, ALL or MOST service providers).

It's unenforcable.

Right. The first amendment only prevents the government from infringing upon your speech rights, not Verizon, a little technicality that's often overlooked when discussing free-speech rights.

Another thing often overlooked when discussin free speech rights, and what y'all are overlooking here, is that not ALL speech is protected.

Harassment of another individual, for example, isn't protected speech.

[RS Davis]

Jodi said:

Indeed. And they don't have an inherent right to spread their message via the telephone system to those who don't want them to call.

True, that right can be limited by phone companies, and their target market, by not answering or hanging up the phone.

Jodi said:

You're looking at this backwards. The issue isn't one of what the telemarketers do on the lines owned by their telelphone service provider- it's about the rights of those who receive the call.

Actually, I am looking at it from the perspective of both their rights, whereas you are looking only at the rights of the sympathetic party.

Jodi said:

Also, your solution is no solution, because it offers no protection for those being harassed by the telemarketer. All the marketing company has to do is find a telephone service provider that doesn't care whom they call, as long as they're paying their bills (which would be, likely, ALL or MOST service providers).

Only one company owns those lines. They can contractually oblige everyone who uses them to follow their rules.

Jodi said:

Another thing often overlooked when discussin free speech rights, and what y'all are overlooking here, is that not ALL speech is protected.

You're right. They've significantly limited our right to free speech.

- Rick

[Jodi]

Another thing often overlooked when discussin free speech rights, and what y'all are overlooking here, is that not ALL speech is protected.

Harassment of another individual, for example, isn't protected speech.

You're right. They've significantly limited our right to free speech.

So, using your logic, Rick, a stalker has the right to call you every 60 seconds all day and all night, and if the phone company doesn't care, your only recourse should be to hang up or not answer your phone?

You're kidding with this, right?

[Kender]

I find myself agreeing more with Jodi. I love the no-call list. Jodi compared it to a "no tresspassing" sign. I think it's more of a "No Solicitors" sign.

All it does is give people the option to opt out of lists (or computer-generated dialing) up front and put the power of the state behind it to make sure the opt-out list is not ignored.

If telemarketers have any rights, I suppose I'm just not interested in them. I keep thinking of the adage "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

Personally, I think the no-call list is a good thing for telemarketers. It helps them focus on the people who are less likely to hang up on them. ;D It makes things more efficient, doesn't it? Telemarketers should get down on their knees and thank us for the no-call list.

[penguin]

Jodi said:

So, using your logic, Rick, a stalker has the right to call you every 60 seconds all day and all night, and if the phone company doesn't care, your only recourse should be to hang up or not answer your phone?

There's a huge differnence between being truly harassed, and simply being annoyed. If someone continued to attempt to contact you, by whatever means, after you repeatedly asked them to stop, that would be harrassment. If someone tries to sell you siding during "Joe Millionaire", that's annoying, but using the Iron Boot of The Man to prevent it is more than a bit Ashcroftian.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

There's a huge differnence between being truly harassed, and simply being annoyed. If someone continued to attempt to contact you, by whatever means, after you repeatedly asked them to stop, that would be harrassment. If someone tries to sell you siding during "Joe Millionaire", that's annoying, but using the Iron Boot of The Man to prevent it is more than a bit Ashcroftian.

Yeah, that's what restraining orders are for. And even with those, you have to show cause before they will give you one. I couldn't just decide I never wanted to be bothered by Rob Thomas (which I don't) and get a restraining order against him.

- Rick

[Jodi]

penguin said:

There's a huge differnence between being truly harassed, and simply being annoyed. If someone continued to attempt to contact you, by whatever means, after you repeatedly asked them to stop, that would be harrassment. If someone tries to sell you siding during "Joe Millionaire", that's annoying, but using the Iron Boot of The Man to prevent it is more than a bit Ashcroftian.

Nope.

You have a right to tell anybody not to call you, even if they've never called you before, and even if "they" are a business.

If you tell somebody not to call you, and they do, that's harassment.

[RS Davis]

Jodi said:

Nope.

You have a right to tell anybody not to call you, even if they've never called you before, and even if "they" are a business.

If you tell somebody not to call you, and they do, that's harassment.

I'm glad we never dated! ;D

- Rick

[penguin]

Jodi said:

Nope.

You have a right to tell anybody not to call you, even if they've never called you before, and even if "they" are a business.

If you tell somebody not to call you, and they do, that's harassment.

No, that's being rude. There's no law against me calling you simply because you ask me not to, and there shouldn't be.

Besides, why do you want to take food out of the mouths of all those min-wage telemarketing workers?

[hotjan]

You know, I think a lot of people have the mistaken idea that one has a right not to be annoyed, offended or made uncomfortable in any way. This is crap. It's crappity-crap-crap. We have wonderful rights in this country, rights to property and person, but NOT the right to an annoyance-free life.

[Jodi]

penguin said:

No, that's being rude. There's no law against me calling you simply because you ask me not to, and there shouldn't be.

Actually, yes, there are laws against telephone harassment.

Harassment: Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person. An excellent alternate definition can be found in Canadian human rights legislation as: "a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome."

penguin said:

Besides, why do you want to take food out of the mouths of all those min-wage telemarketing workers?

I don't recall saying that telemarketing should be banned, just that no-call lists don't violate the telemarketing company's rights.

A better question might be, when did you start thinking that minimum wage earners were worth your concern?

[penguin]

Jodi said:

A better question might be, when did you start thinking that minimum wage earners were worth your concern?

When did I ever say that they were not worth my concern? I don't like to see them lose jobs because of pokenose government legislation to keep suburbanites from being pestered during Buffy reruns by storm window peddlers.

[hotjan]

I agree, Penguin. Government has no right to limit business simply because people may find them irritating. A telemarketer interupting someone's dinner is NOT harassment. It's simply annoying. If one doesn't want to talk to a siding salesperson, one can turn off the ringer on the phone, check the caller id or just ignore the stupid phone.

[J. Hill]

HotJan said:

You know, I think a lot of people have the mistaken idea that one has a right not to be annoyed, offended or made uncomfortable in any way. This is crap. It's crappity-crap-crap. We have wonderful rights in this country, rights to property and person, but NOT the right to an annoyance-free life.

Rights are created by law. We can make as many as, and of whatever kind, we please. Making a right to be free of telemarketing annoyances would not be a problem.

[Jodi]

penguin said:

When did I ever say that they were not worth my concern? I don't like to see them lose jobs because of pokenose government legislation to keep suburbanites from being pestered during Buffy reruns by storm window peddlers.

I think your record in supporting overseas outsourcing and unpaid overtime (creating the need for fewer emloyees) demonstrates that your concern isn't for the employees, but for the business owner. That, in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Further, I'm not sure why you're convinced the federal no call list as instituted would cost jobs.

Many states already have no-call lists.

In every state, if you tell the telemarketer to put you on their no-call list, they're not allowed to call you again.

Finally, how many actually signed up for the Federal list? 10 million households? That leaves the vast majority of American households available as telemarketing fodder.

But again, despite your denials, you have the right to tell somebody not to call you. If I tell you not to call me, and you do- that's legally harassment.

Why should business owners be above the law?