Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?

self | self

[bobsatwork]

Let these lowlife phone spammers go door-to-door selling their wares. This is my biggest worry about do-not-call. They WILL go door to door. Instead of an ignorable phone ring during dinner hour, there will be parades of former telemarketers ringing the doorbell. And SCOTUS recently ruled that door-to-door pitches are pretty much unstoppable. I think there are large downsides to do-not-call. I signed up, but I would have preferred something less than this nuclear option. This market will be destroyed, and a new one will emerge. (Actually, this is all moot. SCOTUS will kill do-no-call)

[SamAdams76]

This has nothing to do with government regulating business. It has to do with preserving the sanctity of private homes. It is said that a man's home is his castle. It should stay that way. The private home is not a proper place for businesspeople to make their solicitations.

The "do not call" registry is the phone equivalent of a "No soliciting" sign on the front door. A man (or woman) should have the right to keep his home free of telemarketers invading their privacy.

[FreePaul]

If the telemarketers organize an effort to stop the government from telling businesses what you can and can't do I'll support them. Until then DON'T CALL!!!

[mrs tiggywinkle]

I never enter contests and *never* offer my cell phone number to *anyone* other than my husband and best friend. The only thing I can think of is that the cell phone company sold my number...?

[tahiti]

"This is NOT government intrusion."

Sure it is, for two reasons.

1--what entity enforces that the members of the do not call list are not called?

2--the law regulation not only exceeds the authority of the regulating government agency, the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

"...individuals deciding what is right for their household."

I would suggest that as an "individual deciding what is right for their household" that you act as "individual" not as a "collectivist or socialist" and take the "individual" steps necessary for you to stop telephone calls from telemarketers.

[norraad]

Thank you, that's my view, it is an attack.

I don't have the knowledge or the wherewithall but I love to see the energy of the computer virus designers create a boiler room call virus.

[elfman2]

Some would say that the difference is that telemarketers are trespassing when they come on their private phone. Of course they don’t say the same about unwanted commercials on their private television, and they don’t mention they connected their phone to a public network with the implication and understanding that anyone could call.

Some would say that it becomes trespassing when they caller refuses to obey the do not call list. But they don’t address how arbitrary the selection of “just business telemarketers” is when they authorize this new role for the government. They don’t acknowledge that a future administration could assemble a “hate speakers list” or an “intolerance list” and require they check who doesn’t want to be contacted. They could even require websites such as this one to be flagged with that label so that kids don’t accidentally stumble onto this “annoyance”. They also don’t address why if you can require a telemarketer to check your name before annoying you with their “trespass”, someone else can’t tell specific minorities or religions to check a list before trespassing. They don’t say why a solicitor that annoys someone should be treated defiantly than a minority, evangelist or even a charity that someone finds universally annoying.

Despite all of this, I’m not strongly against it, at least this is not the hill I want to die on defending a principle. More egregious violations of the Constitution are practice with less beneficial results.

I don’t think that just because hundreds of thousands of people are employed at something that their employment has value to society. I think that most of telemarketers are rip off artists, and I don’t think that putting them out of business is a bad result. I’m just wary of the unintended consequences. I don’t buy the “privacy” argument for all the reasons above, and I don’t like the scope creep of our federal government’s powers, especially spearheaded by Republicans.

[Scenic Sounds]

What happens when all the telemarketing jobs get exported to Ireland or India and our laws don't extend to them? And the calls continue cause we can't stop them.

Hey, that's an interesting point. I don't know the answer to that one.

I think that things have just gotten out of hand in that industry. It really has become oppressively aggressive. Something will be done. ;-)

[AppyPappy]

It's trespassing and harassment. They come into YOUR home

[gitmo]

Good reply.

[norraad]

Excactly, it's not "stumbling onto an annoyance" like elfman implies.

[LadyDoc]

I hate being interrupted during suppertime by telemarketers.

I NEVER give to charities who call over the phone. And yes, if you do business with them they have the "right" to call, but I changed credit cards when they kept calling me, and have instructed all those telephone company calls to stop calling.

Most cities are allowed to limit door to door solititations, and aggressvie beggars, and private areas now are allowed to limit "free speech". Remember all those people who used to bother you at the airport? Now they are gone. But before they passed the law making airports a private space able to limit such things, people hated them too. THe movie "AIRPLANE!" got a big laugh when angry pilot played by robert stack punches out all of them, one by one...

[lewislynn]

Cell phone numbers were exempt, except for when you've purchased something and gave the cell phone number as your primary contact point. The list was then sold to an affiliated company and bingo, you've got cell phone telemarketing calls.

And you have no problem with that?

[Paleo Conservative]

Wrong Question:
Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?

Right Question:
Why is my telephone any different from any of my other property. Do telemarketers have a right to trespass on my property just because the address is published.

[JimFreedom]

Well we could always JDAM them into compliance.....

[MizSterious]

And did they even pay their workers? A local operation, it turns out, did not pay their employees when they skipped town.

[lewislynn]

If you are the business owner, it's government intrusion saying what you can and can't do.

You don't have to be a business owner for that. Name a business where that ISN'T true...welcome to the real world.

[Freebird Forever]

I'm allowed by law to post a No Trespassing / No Soliciting sign at the edge of my property. This then permits me to enforce (at least here in Texas) the exclusion of all unwelcome visitors, both private and commercial.

For there not to be an equal allowance of protection on my phone line is nothing short of asinine.

[MizSterious]

A good point. You know, if anyone else calls you repeatedly, you can get a court order to make them stop. So how is a telemarketer any different from anyone else? How can this be a "free speech" issue? Free speech is limited all the time--just ask the tobacco, alcohol and gun companies.