Posted on 09/24/2003 8:51:49 AM PDT by rattrap
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Tough. It would also be cheaper for them to hire gang-bangers to throw notes on bricks through people's windows in exchange for a few rocks of crack, but that doesn't mean they should be permitted to do so.
Again, because the dirty little secret of telemarketing is that its profit margin depends on finding the weak-willed, the human-contact-starved, and the not-quite-all-there-any-more.
People who already want something will find the vendor on their own initiative. People who don't want something and have no difficulty in saying "no" will not be swayed by telemarketing. That leaves the people described in the previous paragraph as the telepests' bread and butter.
If such people can shield themselves permanently by taking one simple action, the whole scam dries up and blows away.
What is the source of your assertion that the federal government, rather than the individual phone owner, is placing people on the DNC list?
THANK YOU. I hate telemarketers as much as the next guy, and I confess that I did register for this list. But the do not call registry is very clearly an intrusive concept as far as protecting free speech. I am grateful that the courts are willing to look at the bigger issue here.
The do not call list imposes a governmental barrier to entry against companies who wish to compete against larger companies with strong market shares. It prohibits a company with a better product or lower price from communicating with 50 million potential consumers using a public medium. It can only result in market inneficiency and higher prices.
It seems to me that if a person lists his name and phone number in a public directory, there should be no prohibition against anyone, whether business or political or charitable, using that information to exercise their free speech rights.
I claim the right to do it in person. It's called knocking on your door. You may answer or not, which is your right.
When you put a doorbell in public view, that's the equivalent of placing your name in a public directory as far as I'm concerned.
Sheesh! some of the people on this thread remind me of the ACLU lawyers suing to be free FROM religion, and the rights of others to have freedom OF religion MUST be curtailed.
Before I get flamed, let me point out that I don't think Religious freedom and telemarketing are equal. I am merely pointing out that the mindset that "I have a right to not be uncomfortable" is getting pervasive in this country.
My phone is not a "public medium". My phone is private property.
If you knock on the door of a house posted "NO SOLICITORS" to make a sales pitch, you might be arrested, and properly so.
If you call a phone number posted on the Do Not Call list to make a sales pitch, you might be fined, and properly so.
End of argument.
Yes, just as the government will use its power to prosecute those who ignore NO TRESPASSING signs.
Protection of private property is one of the proper functions of government.
Agreed. But where in the Constitution does it state that the government in the business of making NO SOLICITOR signs? I completely agree I have a right to post a no solicitor sign on my door if I like, and to enforce it. But what business is it of the government's whether I do or not?
California has its share of weirdoes because most originated in Oklahoma during the 1930s when some Okies had to leave because of the depression and the drought. But I am wondering where some of these new Oklahoma judges have come from. The people in Oklahoma voted to ban cock-fighting and one judge overturned the vote. How's that for stupid?
When a telemarketer calls I try to use up as much of their time as possible, then when I have thought of just about every question possible to ask the telemarketer, I tell them what VP CHeney told Senator Pat Leahy recently -
"F*** off and take my name and number off your list. On one occasion I told the caller that I needed their billing address because they had called my private line and I was forced to send them a bill for $250.00 for their call. After going through the original caller and two supervisors they said they would take me off the list. There are plenty of games you can play with them and have some fun at their expense.
Damn!
I just filed a complaint with the feds yesterday on a mortgage firm in Phoenix yesterday hoping that they would fine the hell out of them!
Seriously, if enough people feel really strongly about the issue, then the law will be crafted and no court will overturn it.
Thanks to Cheney, we can use the "F" word now, and before I hang up from unsolicited calls, I will say the magic word. Of course, the caller is probably in India or some such place, but, what the heck-- irritate me by calling at suppertime and I will irritate you (if you understand what I mean when I tell you to go "f---" yourself.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "I Did It ... Because I Could"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
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.