(Bruce Leverett) wrote in message om...
(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
[[ KidDon wrote: ]]
1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of the 1st
Amendment;

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

KidDon
==============
[[ End of what KidDon wrote ]]
I think a lot of ban supporters are unaware of the long history of 1st
Amendment protection granted by the federal courts to commercial speech.
I became interested in this many years ago when I got into a snit with the
Florida Insurance Department's advertising regs. I wrote to the US Supreme
Court and purchased a number of "slip opinions" on cases involving the
regulation of commercial speech. Until then even I was unaware that the Court
has ruled steadfastly over many, many cases that commercial speech is identical
to any other speech and has the same 1st Amendment protections as any other
speech.
Also, in the telemarketing case as well as in past cases, the Court
generally does not like to allow the government to make substantial choices for
the consumer... to wander too far into the process of making consumer
decisions. The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices.

"The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices." Right on
brother. What if my choice is not to receive calls?

But I owe a response to KidDon first. Thanks for the courtesy of
trying to come up with a non-cynical rationale. The "administrative
pain in the butt" issue is meaningful to me. If it isn't real easy
for a telemarketer to use a do-not-call list, then it's real hard,
there's no middle ground when you're making a zillion calls a day.
The "unintentional violations ... serious fines" issue follows
directly from the "administrative pain in the butt" issue. But on the
other hand, as a consumer, I don't feel like this should be my
problem. If I post "No trespassing" or "no soliciting", what happens
if you then commit an "unintentional violation"?

Separately, there's the "takes away part of a potential market" issue.
This is just a restatement of the "cynical" stuff. Like I said, if
people don't want to be called, why would you really want to call
them?

I had an interesting change of perspective on this very recently. My
wife and I both regard telemarketers as a nuisance, but on the other
hand, my wife made two major purchases from telemarketers who were
making cold calls: my wife signed up for cell phone service that way
(her favorite electronic toy), and also DSL service (my favorite
electronic toy). So when Pennsylvania came out with a do-not-call
list, I thought, "I'd like to sign up, but would she let me?" But
then my wife signed up. I reminded her of the two major purchases,
but she replied, "Yes, I know, but I want to be on the list anyway; I
just get tired of all those calls." And she's the one who takes most
of the calls, so she gets to make that decision. So when I think of
"taking away part of a potential market", I think of my wife, who was
very definitely in the potential market, and who definitely wants out.

I am reminded of various other nuisances caused by people who want to
sell me stuff. I get more junk mail than you can shake a stick at,
including thick stacks of flyers from area supermarkets, discount
stores, etc. I throw it out. If I had to pay for garbage disposal by
the pound, I'd worry about it, but being a city boy, I don't. Then
there are TV and radio commercials. Then there is spam. If all I had
to do was delete messages every morning, it wouldn't be much different
from throwing out junk mail. But it's full of pornography, chain
mail, frauds, and other loathsome matter that I don't want my children
to see. Somehow that stuff has been eradicated from all the other
media, but not from spam. Guess that is what law enforcement has
accomplished in this context. So spam is a more serious problem than
all the other nuisances, including telemarketing.

________________________________
One simple example/hypothetical. A person hearing on the news that a
free do not call list is available via 60 seconds on the internet may
very well sign up on the spur of the moment, and never receive
telemarketing calls again. That does not necessariy mean that person
would have always been an unwilling recipient and/or would have always
said no to a properly targeted marketing pitch for the right product
or service. For example, let's say that a skilled telemarketer calls
and says something like: Hello, I'm Joe Smith from FinestMortgage.*
Is this Mr. Johnson? I see from public records that you have a [VA,
FHA, etc...] loan on your home at 10%. With minimal paperwork and no
closing costs out of your pocket, I may be able to refinance that loan
at 7% and save you $189 per month. Doesn't that sound good to
you?.....etc....." That same person might very well be interested.

KidDon

*This is a fictional name I picked at random. If there is a real
FinestMortgage out there, this is not intended to reflect on it or
refer to it in any way.