[CLUE-Talk] Colorado's No-Call List

[jbrockmeier at earthlink.net]

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Jeffery Cann wrote:

> On Saturday 11 May 2002 10:17 am, jbrockmeier at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > How is it unfair to refuse a business the "right" to tresspass
> > on my property? Since I pay for my phone line, I consider
> > it my right to refuse anyone the right to call me.
> 
> Do you believe you have the right to refuse to have someone ring your 
> doorbell?  If you posted 'No Tresspassing' signs in your front yard, then you 
> do.  This is equivalent to the 'no call' list -- it is a no tresspass sign.  
> BTW - If you check the laws on tresspassing on private property, you'll see 
> that 'notification' (i.e., a sign) is a requirement, otherwise it is legal 
> for someone to be on your property until you ask them to leave.

Yes, I do have the right to refuse people the right to ring my 
doorbell (well, I don't actually have a doorbell, but that's not
really the point...).

In many cities, I believe there are solicitor laws requiring people
to have a license prior to going door-to-door or forbidding it outright. 
Loosely enforced, but still there. Why? Because people got tired of door-to-door
salesmen and beggars and whatnot knocking on their door. No previous
"opt-out" required. It's gotten to the same point with telemarketing.
One telemarketer isn't really a big deal, but it's gotten to the point
that the flood of phone calls is annoying.  
 
> Further, you do not own the phone line, the phone company (Qwest) does.  You 
> lease its use.  Check your service agreement (note that it is a 'service' 
> agreement).  This is a major difference in our laws -- the difference in 
> ownership (i.e., property) and not.  Property ownership conveys special 
> rights (constitutionally), which you illustrated above.  One of them is the 
> right to refuse to be bothered.  Since you don't own your phone lines, you 
> are not conveyed the same rights (legally) that you have with your property.

I don't own my apartment, either - but I still have the right to deny
salesmen and so forth the right to knock on my door. So, I don't really
think the argument about whether or not I actually own my phone line
matters - There are laws that recognize a person's "right" to the PHONE
NUMBER which is actually what's being abused. I believe there are laws
in place that are supposed to protect a person's ability to transfer
a phone number if they switch service.    
 
> I agree that the solution should have been 'opt in', not 'opt out'.  This was 
> not my point in the previous post, but is is the major flaw in the entire 
> 'solution' of telemarketing.

And if businesses had to get prior permission, telemarketing would
be a very short-lived phenomenon indeed. 
 
> It's not trespassing, since the phone line is not your property.  My point 
> about free speech was that a ban on telemarketers is a bias against their 
> form of advertising / marketing which is cold calling.  Once you have a bias, 
> it is easy to transfer that bias to another situation, much like banning a 
> book promotes the same transfer of bias.  It is not really a free speech 
> issue, its a bias, sanctioned by the government.

See above. A bias against a form of advertising is not the same as a bias
against the message itself. Having nude women wear a small sign on their
back advertising my business on a streetcorner would probably do wonders
for my business - but the law recognizes that society has the right to
set limits. It's deciding WHERE the limit should be placed that is the
issue. If the vast majority of people hate telemarketing, then I see
no reason why it can't be gotten rid of. I'm sure the percentage of 
people who disapprove of attractive naked women (or men) in public is 
smaller than the percentage of people who disapprove of telemarketing. 

Don't forget - the "government" is you and me and everyone who
votes. It's not some nebulous entity that acts completely independently
of the populace. It sometimes does not act in the interest of the
populace, but that's largely a failure of the populace to pay 
attention to what their elected officials are doing.   
 
> If you don't like a TV program or web site (viewed in your home) you can 
> always 'opt out' and change the channel, right?  The same with telemarketing. 
>  If you really didn't like it, you would disconnect your phone, use only a 
> cell phone and never give away your cell number to anyone other than personal 
> friends or family.  This is certainly an option, however unrealistic. 

These are apples and oranges. My computer does not wake me up at 9AM
with an advertisement, neither does my television. I have a certain amount
of control over those - I decide when to turn them on, and when to turn
them off. I don't have to specifically turn off the TV's sound in case
it decides to pop on for a commercial in the early morning hours. One 
of the things I really hate about telemarketing is that I have to decide
whether to leave the ringer on to receive calls I want, or turn it off
to avoid the ones that I don't. I subscribe to the call blocker but
I still get those damn auto-dialer calls from Florida and other states.
Sorry, but the two don't compare. Besides - I get a service in exchange
for the advertising on my TV and the banners and such on Web sites. What
do I get from telemarketers? Zip, nada, nothing.  

Also - I used to work late hours, and sleep from about 7AM to Noon. There
are a LOT of telemarketers who like to call during those hours. I think
my right to get a decent amount of sleep *and* be able to take a phone 
call when it's important outweigh the rights of parasitic bastards who
are trying to sell me a plot of land in Florida or sell me vinyl siding
when I don't even own a house.  
 
> The difference, IMHO, is the folks think they are entitled to use their phone 
> line like their other personal property.  The only right you really have with 
> using your phone is the right to privacy.  For this, a law enforcement agency 
> must seek approval from a court of law.

I don't see why this is a bad thing. If you pay for it, it's should 
be yours to use as your private property until you cease paying for
it.  
 
> Agreed.  But the only thing you can do is not buy anything yourself and 
> suggest to others that they follow your lead.  Fortunately, in our free 
> society, you cannot force others to do what you (and I) want --> never buy 
> anything from any telemarketer.

No, I can also continue to make noise about it and hope that the majority
of people follow and help outlaw the practice altogether. Again, this isn't
a free speech issue or taking away any constitutional rights. There are
laws against all sorts of business practices - this doesn't actually prevent
any business from advertising - it would simply forbid a certain type of
advertising. It's already been done with cigarettes and hard liquor, you 
don't see cigarette advertising on TV because people decided that it 
wasn't in the best interest of our society. I believe (but I'm not 100%
certain) that hard liquor advertising is not actually banned as such,
but it is some kind of voluntary agreement.     


-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier -=- jbrockmeier at earthlink.net
http://www.DissociatedPress.net/
ymessenger: jbrockmeier / AIM: ZonkerJoe
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off 
their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more." - Mark Twain