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

[Jeffery Cann]

On Saturday 11 May 2002 01:06 pm, jbrockmeier at earthlink.net wrote:

> 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...).

Just because you THINK you have the right to refuse to allow people to ring 
your (non existent) doorbell does not mean you actually have a legal right to 
do so.

> 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. 

Please, Z, show me a legal right to this.  A statute or something, because I 
call bullshit.  You certainly have the right to ask people to leave your 
front door if they are ringing it, trying to sell you something.  This is 
part of the tresspass laws

Because you don't own your apartment means you have tenant rights, yet 
another specific type of legal rights afforded to you.  These are different 
than real property rights.  However, one of the basic rights for tenants is 
the right to privacy.  However, your landowner does have the legal right to 
enter your apartment under certain circumstances.

Check Article 13 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, these are the laws that 
govern your tenant and landlord rights:


> So, I don't really
> think the argument about whether or not I actually own my phone line
> matters - 

Well, two posts ago, that was your point, here's your quote:

"Since I pay for my phone line, I consider it my right to refuse anyone the 
right to call me."

I read this as you think that a) you own the phone line, because you 'pay for 
my phone line'.


here 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.