Yeah, you're pretty much right on. They can publish their calendar without having to license anything at all or get any permission from Ford, so long as they don't market it with Ford's corporate logo and the Mustang logo. An analogy that occurs to me is third-party iPod or Nintendo (etc.) stuff: they can include pictures of the Wii, or the iPod, on their packaging, and they can say "Compatible with Nintendo Wii" or "Works with the Apple iPod," they just can't use the Apple logo or the Nintendo font and red oval. So long as it's clear that it isn't Ford creating or selling this calendar, the group has very broad rights.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's a false analogy. In the Simpsons scenario, the guy ahead of Homer could only buy the tickets if there were no per-buyer limits and he had the funds to buy all of the tickets (I recall that there's a joke where the scalper says he only has $10 on him and is allowed to pay the clerk back the day after). In this case, almost every ad I saw said "limit of 2 per person" or some such language, and besides which, there *still* has to be demand for a Wii at $300 over demand for a Wii at $250 for any of these scalped Wiis to be sold. I mean, that's exactly what happened with the PS3--the floor fell out, and now sellers have to put them out at a discount. If you think that more speculated on the Wii than the PS3, well, I don't have figures, but it seems to me that that wouldn't be the case.
But rereading your post it looks like we aren't talking about the same thing. Oh well, I'm posting this anyway.
What are you talking about? Have you ever taken an economics course? Supply isn't meeting demand at the ordained price point, so a third party--'scalpers'--are making the market work efficiently. Someone who pays $100 above retail for a Wii clearly wants it more than someone who would only pay retail. The existence of the secondary market shows that Nintendo (et al.) aren't charging enough.
Dave, you are a voice of reason among many fools. That's all I have to say. It might not pass the filter about how many characters, though, comments have to be, and I don't know that it'll pass the time barrier, either. Commenting on slashdot sure sucks. There's all these boners that are upset that facebook tells people that they have added as friends about changes to their relationship status and what music they like.
Actually, funny story: I asked a colleague of mine at KUOI if he'd heard of the Silversun Pickups, an indie rock act. He said he thought he heard their album and liked it OK. Later I see on facebook that he added them as an interest. Ha ha, what a tool.
It was, in fact, a couple somethings you said, in resposne to your question. I only saw this part of the thread so I'll try to talk about some of the issues here presented, and other points.
--
Forgive me if I haven't made this clear: I understand why people might be inclined to hang up on me. Simultaneously I think it's discourteous. Simultaneously I don't cry myself to sleep over it. I have justified to myself what I am doing. People are statistics are people; people deserve to be treated respectfully; I am a person, I am calling people. Your opinion, it seems, is that part of the deal of treating people with respect includes not to be called by persons unknown, to at least some degree. I disagree with you on that, and I don't think that anything I say will change your mind.
My position, I'll admit, is somewhat nuanced. Maybe yours is similarly nuanced, because from this post here a cohesive argument from your part escapes me: I'm discourteous for not responding to you. I'm discourteous if I keep talking to people. I'm discourteous if I reply to people who have replied to me.
So you replied to me today about my silence in front of some unanswered replies. So here I am now talking to you again. I stopped replying because I didn't think any more benefit would come about from further discussion.
Let me address this text here: Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you. How I choose not to listen is my business. Suck it up. [...] People don't like to be called randomly. Amazing, really, that you tout the DNC legislation as your modus operandi when most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from people like you.
I agree with your statement about my rights and people listening to me. How you choose not to listen is your business, I agree. Suck it up, you say? Okay. I will, and do, and can. People don't like to be called randomly--fine. Most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from "people like me"--fine. Some wouldn't. Some revel in it. I don't have a divination rod that can tell me who's who, and I'm not prepared to call noone to be on the safe side. The law is that there is, in fact, a political exemption. Of course, politicians wrote the laws, signed the law, and interpreted the law. That's our system. Our system, and its servants, think that government and politics is something holy, and elevated, and virtuous, and good. Maybe you disagree, or disagree in the respect of telephones. That's fine. But it's my opinion, too.
understand the medium, suck it up, and move on. Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!
You're right. It is ridiculous, and unenforceable. I cannot reasonably demand or expect it. I cannot reasonably demand or expect people to hold doors open for me, or to pick up my papers if I should drop them, or to offer me a tissue when I sneeze, or to help me if I have a flat tire. But some people do, and I appreciate that. I try to be a humble and courteous and gracious guy. That goes so far as even when I'm on the telephone. I don't follow the script I'm given right now because there's a lot of bullshit they ask me to say and it takes up people's time unreasonably and I wouldn't like to hear it myself, so I'm curt and gracious and humble. I think, ideally, everybody would be courteous to everyone else. Your definition of courtesy lies on this side of not calling people you don't know for political polling, and mine has a line where you don't hang up on people unless they're unreasonably incessant, or a message, or other like circumstances.
I was egregious in my employ of that quote, "have you no decency, sir." If you did not recognize it, it's what Joseph Welch said to Sen. Joseph McCarthy after his Communist ordeal finally came to an end. I beg pardon for having said it, but, like many, it's sometimes hard for me to understand points of view contrary to my own on issues very fundamental to me, as civics is. I think voting is a right and a duty
That's not hypocrisy. The AC is calling me out for what he views as a privacy-violating imposition on others while not giving my phone number out freely. He's only asking me to defend my actions. He's saying that I should be public with my info if I call people, but he isn't calling people, and so he doesn't have to supply anything.
Posting a comment like yours occured to me, but on that argument, he's on sure footing insofar as hypocrisy goes. Maybe I didn't explain it very well, though. Anyway, I'm only calling registered voters from Idaho's 1st district (in fact, within 30 miles of my residence), and I'm not trying to defend any other calls here right now, so. That's my counterargument--he isn't in my district.
Well, that's fair. I wish I had a divining rod that could tell me who doesn't mind and who does. I try to have some humility in what I do and we're basically of the same opinion here. Thanks for your comments.
Well, the burden of proof lies on the person who says it's against the law, not the guy who says it's lawful.
Your bit about intrusiveness strikes me as counterintuitive: the measure of intrusiveness shouldn't be on how easy it is to do but by how much the person on the receiving end is burdened. A phone call vs. a doorknock (or doorbell ring), at reasonable hours--I don't think there's a material difference. I may be mistaken in this. I don't know what the legal force behind "no soliciting" signs are if any, and if political or religious visits would infringe on any legal precedents. The people I'm calling have not expressed a desire to speak with anybody on whose behalf I'm talking, they're merely registered voters. I regret if that wasn't clear. Earlier I somewhat-misleadingly used the term "cold call," which is in a sense what I am doing--there's no preexisting business or personal relationship. I mean to say that I'm not picking numbers out of a phone book.
IANAL. But to suggest that trespassing such as I have admitted to doing, in person and on the phone, is illegal is to suggest tens or hundreds of thousands of politicians and missionaries and salesmen do so every day and have done so for decades. Common sense dictates trespass law is not so broad. What I've found after some cursory research is that most of the time in America for trespassers to be prosecuted they must be asked to leave. If they do not the police may be called in. Re the case you cite, the problem wasn't a tax (though that would be a problem) on door-to-door communication, but that one had to register to go door-to-door at all. The permits were free, in fact. I did point to that case in another reply to a comment here.
Lots of heated argument against me. You're very levelheaded, which I appreciate, and I apologize if I'm here ineloquent or haven't wholly addressed the matters here presented, but it's about the best I can do right now.
I give my name and don't take any measures to protect my number (my personal cell phone number) when I call.
I'm only calling registered Idaho voters, and that's all I'm defending, here. In fact, I'm only calling and visiting registered voters in my city. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - if you're a resident of Idaho's 1st Congressional District I'll give you my phone number.
Are you a resident of Idaho? If you are (maybe you can fax or email me your voter registration card) then I will supply you my phone number--there's nothing on the national ballot this year. You can call to ask about my views, or to support candidates. I'll tell you I'm not interested and hang up. You'll grant me the same courtesy I would grant anyone and not call me back. Personally I'd rather not go through the Kabuki theater.
If you hadn't already divined I have already found justification for doing this. I agree with you, as I've said--being hung up on is legitimate. I have a box that I check to notify the data enterer that this person would not like to be contacted any further. But I think it's discourteous and I used a rhetorical device earlier; I think I'm doing something justifiable and going about it in a justifiable manner. You disagree. Fine. My methodology's efficacy isn't something I know figures about. I'm a student of science, but I am not a scientist. The national, state and local parties do employ scientists and they've directed me to do this. There are people with whom I've shared literature or opinions and there are people who have eagerly requested campaign signs. I do not believe they view what I do as an intrusion, or if they do, it seems to be a welcome one.
If I'm hung up on or called an asshole or interrupted and told they're not interested I check the box that signifies to not contact the person again. I don't redial upon being hung up on. I had some friends in high school who worked at telephone survey places, and they would call people back if they were hung up on. I do not. I've been asked to hold and consequently hung up on; I don't call back in those situations, either.
We have another fundamental disagreement. You believe calling a stranger for a politial cause is inherently impolite. I disagree. In my weltanschauung if I am treated politely I am obliged to treat one with politeness; I find what I am doing polite-neutral but I go about it on the phone politely, so I would like to be treated with dignity. If I'm not obliged I'm not going to start crying and be temporarily disabled.
You mention privacy in regard to my mention of freedom of speech and assembly. You say "prove it," and that you'll throw privacy at me. Not to be a nitpick but I am operating within the law in doing this. Don't you suppose there have been lawsuits? Stratton, Ohio was sick of Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door so they forced anybody who wished to talk to their neighbors to get a permit from the mayor. The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist the sole dissenter (O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer in the majority), found the provision unconstitutional.
snip: "It is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Here's a page on freedom of speech and expression, which notes that political speech is an elevated kind of speech insofar as protection goes. Whereas I may be prohibited from calling you to ask about satellite dish installation, calling you to ask about political figures is permissible until you signify to me it is not. That's the law.
As it so happens I don't find much people hanging up on me. I would estimate the figure at less than five percent.
Give me a break, that's what I want to say when people throw that at me. But I don't, I thank them for their time and hang up. I don't know why their names are on the registered voter rolls, but I am 100% certain that that's where my data comes from. Maybe they registered once to vote for a particular amendment or proposition, or somebody cajoled them into registering eight years ago, or they registered when they bought their house. It's happened.
Um, I identify myself after I've confirmed that the person I meant to call is who I have on the line. Is that not sensible? I'm only calling registered voters. I'm not registering voters right now, and I don't have a framework to deal with data from nonregistered voters. If one is not a registered voter I can presume they don't plan to vote. The only way for me to know the phone numbers of unregistered voters is to cold-call, as from an autodialer. I have no interest in doing that.
Idaho, for what it's worth, doesn't force one to register with a party upon registering to vote. All I know is what one registers with: name, address, phone number, age, sex, sometimes not a phone number.
I don't know what to tell you, neonfrog, because it seems we have fundamentally different beliefs. I'm not talking about a Democrat/Republican or Democrat/Libertarian or Democrat/Socialist divide, but I find justification for what I do and you do not. You're right about an absence family and friendship context, but I'm a person, and I have friends and family and I eat dinner. I don't wish to interrupt dinner and I ask for forgiveness if I do. Sometimes--gee--I don't even answer my phone while I'm eating or talking with people, especially if the number is unknown to me. I may suggest you and others do the same.
Here's a thought: ALL PHONE CALLS ARE INTERRUPTIONS. The phone is inherently a discourteous device, because it has no manners, because we build them to simply ring when one dials their digits. That's how it is. If my university calls me about a course, or someone calls me because they hear I'm a good DJ, or someone knocks on my door because they want to know what kind of flowers I'm growing in my garden, I don't bite their heads off for it. If I am indisposed then I strive to politely excuse myself.
About your other comments: As it stands we have a government made of political parties. James Madison wished it wouldn't. Alas. That's the current context of the system. Political parties are meant to lubricate involvement with government.
Differentiate the right to not answer your phone vs the right to hang up your phone... um, I'm sorry? You have a right to both. You have a right to say my mother sucks dicks in Hell. You don't have a right to threaten me. You don't have a right to punch me in the face. You have a right to expect I'll leave you alone if you ask me to, and I will respect that right. But until I'm asked to I will engage you because I believe in the merits of my political party and its candidates.
I am certainly not an automated recorded message nor do I employ a predictive dialer; as mentioned the phone numbers I have are from lists of registered voters. I've said elsewhere in this thread--I'm not interested in talking to people that don't want to talk to me. If one doesn't want to be contacted, we don't want to contact them. That's only sensible.
I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to.
Some people might find my call an important call from an unfamiliar number. You do not. It's an opt-out system; the Do-Not-Call list is an opt-in system. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Do-Not-Call list constitutional. If it was to regulate political calls--which the bill, as you know, does not cover--there would be 1st Amendment issues raised, namely, that freedom of speech shall not be infringed by Congress. The right to talk to people and ask them to buy things is a different right than the right to talk to people about political issue, per the decision. An amendment to the Constitution would likely be required.
Nice ad hominem, too. Because I don't personally advertise my cell phone number to Slashdot......my arguments lack merit. No, that doesn't logically follow. Debate me on the merits of my arguments. I feel I'm correct. My email address is listed right there. I'd sooner talk on the phone with the registered Constitution party than I would talk with some guy who called me a political hack on the Internet. on Slashdot.
I don't know if your PS question is sincere or not. I suppose it may be but a simple Google query would give you an OK answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Science My university offers both a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Poli-Sci, which I realize sounds somewhat ridiculous. The B.S. deals a lot with statistical and research methods, whereas the B.A. only deals with those on an introductory level. The B.A. might be more accurately termed "government studies"; international studies, history of politics, and public administration are related fields.
I don't use an automated dialer. I don't dial phone numbers that are not made public by the registered voter. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm not interested in talking to people who wouldn't like to be talked to.
It's a long-established right to be able to contact people. I mean, it's an opt-out kind of thing, necessarily. In my opinion it's right that I am entitled to share my opinion with people unless they tell me they wouldn't like to hear it on their phone or at their house. People are free to not answer their phones, or doors, or to hang up, or to slam their door in my face, or to install guard posts or signs that read "no trespassing" or "authorized personnel only" or whatnot. If upon a phone call or door-to-door visit you make it clear you would like no further contact that's your right and I'm obliged to comply. If I do not it's your right to petition the government to intervene. But like I said. I don't want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to. There are people who would like to be talked to, or don't mind it, at least. I don't have a better way to differentiate the two than what people tell me.
I think it's discourteous. You may disagree. Here's an example of the beginning a phone call from me:
(ring) "Hello?" "Hi, is this Carl Weathers?" "Yes, it is." "Hi, Carl. My name is Marcus. I'm a volunteer with the Idaho Democratic Party and I wonder if I may ask you a few quick questions."
At this point Carl may respond with a curt "no" and hang up if he so pleases, as some do. No sooner than I had said "Democratic" to this one lady than did she interrupt me with an "I'm not interested in donating any money" and then hung up on me. I'm not doing fundraising, I"m doing polling. I will refuse to do fundraising over the phone to registered voters. If somebody's a registered Democrat and they're contributed in the past I may change my mind. But that's a hypothetical. I thought it was discourteous. I don't think it's discourteous to call someone and ask about political issues. I'm not doing automated dialing, the lists are from the list of registered voters. I call during the evening because that's when people are home. I do not call after 8:00. Ignoring my calls is your right, as is hanging up on me... as is being discourteous. I think we're basically on common ground here with maybe some ideological differences. I'm not interested in speaking to people at inconvenient times. I don't wish to interrupt your dinner. I do wish to ask your opinion. If you wouldn't like me to do that then say so. I'm forthright, I'll comply with reasonable requests, but if I may call back at a better time I would like to. That's all.
I didn't mean to complain that I'm not getting paid. If that were an issue I wouldn't be doing this; I thought that was apparent or at least implicit. What I'm saying is I'm not paid to call or visit people, I'm doing it because of personal conviction. Whether that makes me more or less virtuous is your opinion.
"Fucking moron," huh. I don't have a J.D. yet, but I believe that's an argumentum ad hominem.
It is, in fact, my right to call people and to knock on their doors. Similarly they have a right to not answer their phone (if they're concerned about per-minute charges), and they have a right to not answer their door, and they have a right to hang up, and they have a right to slam the door in my face. They don't have a right to censor my beliefs, they don't have a right to assault me. They do have a right to their own beliefs.
If you don't think that a freedom of speech right held by telemarketers is different at all from the right to petition one's countrymen for better government, maybe you should try petitioning China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia for citizenship. Oh, wait, you espouse a right to be left alone. Sorry, I don't know what to recommend to you, then. Maybe there's some vacancies in Canada, or Greenland, or the Antarctic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you're pretty much right on. They can publish their calendar without having to license anything at all or get any permission from Ford, so long as they don't market it with Ford's corporate logo and the Mustang logo. An analogy that occurs to me is third-party iPod or Nintendo (etc.) stuff: they can include pictures of the Wii, or the iPod, on their packaging, and they can say "Compatible with Nintendo Wii" or "Works with the Apple iPod," they just can't use the Apple logo or the Nintendo font and red oval. So long as it's clear that it isn't Ford creating or selling this calendar, the group has very broad rights.
Kudos to you, dude, for being clear and correct.
Uh, why not just use a money order? Grocery stores have them for fifty cents, for God's sake.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's a false analogy. In the Simpsons scenario, the guy ahead of Homer could only buy the tickets if there were no per-buyer limits and he had the funds to buy all of the tickets (I recall that there's a joke where the scalper says he only has $10 on him and is allowed to pay the clerk back the day after). In this case, almost every ad I saw said "limit of 2 per person" or some such language, and besides which, there *still* has to be demand for a Wii at $300 over demand for a Wii at $250 for any of these scalped Wiis to be sold. I mean, that's exactly what happened with the PS3--the floor fell out, and now sellers have to put them out at a discount. If you think that more speculated on the Wii than the PS3, well, I don't have figures, but it seems to me that that wouldn't be the case.
But rereading your post it looks like we aren't talking about the same thing. Oh well, I'm posting this anyway.
What are you talking about? Have you ever taken an economics course? Supply isn't meeting demand at the ordained price point, so a third party--'scalpers'--are making the market work efficiently. Someone who pays $100 above retail for a Wii clearly wants it more than someone who would only pay retail. The existence of the secondary market shows that Nintendo (et al.) aren't charging enough.
At this writing,
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
and
http://www.getfirefox.com/
and
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/
all only say Firefox 1.5. Come f-ing on, slashdot, after having jumped the gun several times on freebsd. do they really need emails from everyone that produces software saying "only announce things when they're really announced" before checking a single website or two to see if something's officially out?
Dave, you are a voice of reason among many fools. That's all I have to say. It might not pass the filter about how many characters, though, comments have to be, and I don't know that it'll pass the time barrier, either. Commenting on slashdot sure sucks. There's all these boners that are upset that facebook tells people that they have added as friends about changes to their relationship status and what music they like.
Actually, funny story: I asked a colleague of mine at KUOI if he'd heard of the Silversun Pickups, an indie rock act. He said he thought he heard their album and liked it OK. Later I see on facebook that he added them as an interest. Ha ha, what a tool.
Now you're the one who isn't responding, friend.
It was, in fact, a couple somethings you said, in resposne to your question. I only saw this part of the thread so I'll try to talk about some of the issues here presented, and other points.
--
Forgive me if I haven't made this clear: I understand why people might be inclined to hang up on me. Simultaneously I think it's discourteous. Simultaneously I don't cry myself to sleep over it. I have justified to myself what I am doing. People are statistics are people; people deserve to be treated respectfully; I am a person, I am calling people. Your opinion, it seems, is that part of the deal of treating people with respect includes not to be called by persons unknown, to at least some degree. I disagree with you on that, and I don't think that anything I say will change your mind.
My position, I'll admit, is somewhat nuanced. Maybe yours is similarly nuanced, because from this post here a cohesive argument from your part escapes me: I'm discourteous for not responding to you. I'm discourteous if I keep talking to people. I'm discourteous if I reply to people who have replied to me.
So you replied to me today about my silence in front of some unanswered replies. So here I am now talking to you again. I stopped replying because I didn't think any more benefit would come about from further discussion.
Let me address this text here: Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you. How I choose not to listen is my business. Suck it up. [...] People don't like to be called randomly. Amazing, really, that you tout the DNC legislation as your modus operandi when most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from people like you.
I agree with your statement about my rights and people listening to me. How you choose not to listen is your business, I agree. Suck it up, you say? Okay. I will, and do, and can. People don't like to be called randomly--fine. Most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from "people like me"--fine. Some wouldn't. Some revel in it. I don't have a divination rod that can tell me who's who, and I'm not prepared to call noone to be on the safe side. The law is that there is, in fact, a political exemption. Of course, politicians wrote the laws, signed the law, and interpreted the law. That's our system. Our system, and its servants, think that government and politics is something holy, and elevated, and virtuous, and good. Maybe you disagree, or disagree in the respect of telephones. That's fine. But it's my opinion, too.
understand the medium, suck it up, and move on. Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!
You're right. It is ridiculous, and unenforceable. I cannot reasonably demand or expect it. I cannot reasonably demand or expect people to hold doors open for me, or to pick up my papers if I should drop them, or to offer me a tissue when I sneeze, or to help me if I have a flat tire. But some people do, and I appreciate that. I try to be a humble and courteous and gracious guy. That goes so far as even when I'm on the telephone. I don't follow the script I'm given right now because there's a lot of bullshit they ask me to say and it takes up people's time unreasonably and I wouldn't like to hear it myself, so I'm curt and gracious and humble. I think, ideally, everybody would be courteous to everyone else. Your definition of courtesy lies on this side of not calling people you don't know for political polling, and mine has a line where you don't hang up on people unless they're unreasonably incessant, or a message, or other like circumstances.
I was egregious in my employ of that quote, "have you no decency, sir." If you did not recognize it, it's what Joseph Welch said to Sen. Joseph McCarthy after his Communist ordeal finally came to an end. I beg pardon for having said it, but, like many, it's sometimes hard for me to understand points of view contrary to my own on issues very fundamental to me, as civics is. I think voting is a right and a duty
That's not hypocrisy. The AC is calling me out for what he views as a privacy-violating imposition on others while not giving my phone number out freely. He's only asking me to defend my actions. He's saying that I should be public with my info if I call people, but he isn't calling people, and so he doesn't have to supply anything.
Posting a comment like yours occured to me, but on that argument, he's on sure footing insofar as hypocrisy goes. Maybe I didn't explain it very well, though. Anyway, I'm only calling registered voters from Idaho's 1st district (in fact, within 30 miles of my residence), and I'm not trying to defend any other calls here right now, so. That's my counterargument--he isn't in my district.
Well, that's fair. I wish I had a divining rod that could tell me who doesn't mind and who does. I try to have some humility in what I do and we're basically of the same opinion here. Thanks for your comments.
Well, the burden of proof lies on the person who says it's against the law, not the guy who says it's lawful.
Your bit about intrusiveness strikes me as counterintuitive: the measure of intrusiveness shouldn't be on how easy it is to do but by how much the person on the receiving end is burdened. A phone call vs. a doorknock (or doorbell ring), at reasonable hours--I don't think there's a material difference. I may be mistaken in this. I don't know what the legal force behind "no soliciting" signs are if any, and if political or religious visits would infringe on any legal precedents. The people I'm calling have not expressed a desire to speak with anybody on whose behalf I'm talking, they're merely registered voters. I regret if that wasn't clear. Earlier I somewhat-misleadingly used the term "cold call," which is in a sense what I am doing--there's no preexisting business or personal relationship. I mean to say that I'm not picking numbers out of a phone book.
IANAL. But to suggest that trespassing such as I have admitted to doing, in person and on the phone, is illegal is to suggest tens or hundreds of thousands of politicians and missionaries and salesmen do so every day and have done so for decades. Common sense dictates trespass law is not so broad. What I've found after some cursory research is that most of the time in America for trespassers to be prosecuted they must be asked to leave. If they do not the police may be called in. Re the case you cite, the problem wasn't a tax (though that would be a problem) on door-to-door communication, but that one had to register to go door-to-door at all. The permits were free, in fact. I did point to that case in another reply to a comment here.
Lots of heated argument against me. You're very levelheaded, which I appreciate, and I apologize if I'm here ineloquent or haven't wholly addressed the matters here presented, but it's about the best I can do right now.
I give my name and don't take any measures to protect my number (my personal cell phone number) when I call.
I'm only calling registered Idaho voters, and that's all I'm defending, here. In fact, I'm only calling and visiting registered voters in my city. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - if you're a resident of Idaho's 1st Congressional District I'll give you my phone number.
I think yours is the first reply to not implicitly or explicitly attack me.
Are you a resident of Idaho? If you are (maybe you can fax or email me your voter registration card) then I will supply you my phone number--there's nothing on the national ballot this year. You can call to ask about my views, or to support candidates. I'll tell you I'm not interested and hang up. You'll grant me the same courtesy I would grant anyone and not call me back. Personally I'd rather not go through the Kabuki theater.
If you hadn't already divined I have already found justification for doing this. I agree with you, as I've said--being hung up on is legitimate. I have a box that I check to notify the data enterer that this person would not like to be contacted any further. But I think it's discourteous and I used a rhetorical device earlier; I think I'm doing something justifiable and going about it in a justifiable manner. You disagree. Fine. My methodology's efficacy isn't something I know figures about. I'm a student of science, but I am not a scientist. The national, state and local parties do employ scientists and they've directed me to do this. There are people with whom I've shared literature or opinions and there are people who have eagerly requested campaign signs. I do not believe they view what I do as an intrusion, or if they do, it seems to be a welcome one.
If I'm hung up on or called an asshole or interrupted and told they're not interested I check the box that signifies to not contact the person again. I don't redial upon being hung up on. I had some friends in high school who worked at telephone survey places, and they would call people back if they were hung up on. I do not. I've been asked to hold and consequently hung up on; I don't call back in those situations, either.
We have another fundamental disagreement. You believe calling a stranger for a politial cause is inherently impolite. I disagree. In my weltanschauung if I am treated politely I am obliged to treat one with politeness; I find what I am doing polite-neutral but I go about it on the phone politely, so I would like to be treated with dignity. If I'm not obliged I'm not going to start crying and be temporarily disabled.
You mention privacy in regard to my mention of freedom of speech and assembly. You say "prove it," and that you'll throw privacy at me. Not to be a nitpick but I am operating within the law in doing this. Don't you suppose there have been lawsuits? Stratton, Ohio was sick of Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door so they forced anybody who wished to talk to their neighbors to get a permit from the mayor. The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist the sole dissenter (O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer in the majority), found the provision unconstitutional.
snip: "It is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Here's a page on freedom of speech and expression, which notes that political speech is an elevated kind of speech insofar as protection goes. Whereas I may be prohibited from calling you to ask about satellite dish installation, calling you to ask about political figures is permissible until you signify to me it is not. That's the law.
As it so happens I don't find much people hanging up on me. I would estimate the figure at less than five percent.
Give me a break, that's what I want to say when people throw that at me. But I don't, I thank them for their time and hang up. I don't know why their names are on the registered voter rolls, but I am 100% certain that that's where my data comes from. Maybe they registered once to vote for a particular amendment or proposition, or somebody cajoled them into registering eight years ago, or they registered when they bought their house. It's happened.
Um, I identify myself after I've confirmed that the person I meant to call is who I have on the line. Is that not sensible? I'm only calling registered voters. I'm not registering voters right now, and I don't have a framework to deal with data from nonregistered voters. If one is not a registered voter I can presume they don't plan to vote. The only way for me to know the phone numbers of unregistered voters is to cold-call, as from an autodialer. I have no interest in doing that.
Idaho, for what it's worth, doesn't force one to register with a party upon registering to vote. All I know is what one registers with: name, address, phone number, age, sex, sometimes not a phone number.
I don't know what to tell you, neonfrog, because it seems we have fundamentally different beliefs. I'm not talking about a Democrat/Republican or Democrat/Libertarian or Democrat/Socialist divide, but I find justification for what I do and you do not. You're right about an absence family and friendship context, but I'm a person, and I have friends and family and I eat dinner. I don't wish to interrupt dinner and I ask for forgiveness if I do. Sometimes--gee--I don't even answer my phone while I'm eating or talking with people, especially if the number is unknown to me. I may suggest you and others do the same.
Here's a thought: ALL PHONE CALLS ARE INTERRUPTIONS. The phone is inherently a discourteous device, because it has no manners, because we build them to simply ring when one dials their digits. That's how it is. If my university calls me about a course, or someone calls me because they hear I'm a good DJ, or someone knocks on my door because they want to know what kind of flowers I'm growing in my garden, I don't bite their heads off for it. If I am indisposed then I strive to politely excuse myself.
About your other comments:
As it stands we have a government made of political parties. James Madison wished it wouldn't. Alas. That's the current context of the system. Political parties are meant to lubricate involvement with government.
Differentiate the right to not answer your phone vs the right to hang up your phone... um, I'm sorry? You have a right to both. You have a right to say my mother sucks dicks in Hell. You don't have a right to threaten me. You don't have a right to punch me in the face. You have a right to expect I'll leave you alone if you ask me to, and I will respect that right. But until I'm asked to I will engage you because I believe in the merits of my political party and its candidates.
I am certainly not an automated recorded message nor do I employ a predictive dialer; as mentioned the phone numbers I have are from lists of registered voters. I've said elsewhere in this thread--I'm not interested in talking to people that don't want to talk to me. If one doesn't want to be contacted, we don't want to contact them. That's only sensible.
That's fair, and I essentially agree. I could get into what I do but I don't imagine you're interested. Anyway, thanks for the comment.
I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to.
...my arguments lack merit. No, that doesn't logically follow. Debate me on the merits of my arguments. I feel I'm correct. My email address is listed right there. I'd sooner talk on the phone with the registered Constitution party than I would talk with some guy who called me a political hack on the Internet. on Slashdot.
Some people might find my call an important call from an unfamiliar number. You do not. It's an opt-out system; the Do-Not-Call list is an opt-in system. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Do-Not-Call list constitutional. If it was to regulate political calls--which the bill, as you know, does not cover--there would be 1st Amendment issues raised, namely, that freedom of speech shall not be infringed by Congress. The right to talk to people and ask them to buy things is a different right than the right to talk to people about political issue, per the decision. An amendment to the Constitution would likely be required.
Nice ad hominem, too. Because I don't personally advertise my cell phone number to Slashdot...
That's fair. Thanks for the comment.
I don't know if your PS question is sincere or not. I suppose it may be but a simple Google query would give you an OK answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Science My university offers both a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Poli-Sci, which I realize sounds somewhat ridiculous. The B.S. deals a lot with statistical and research methods, whereas the B.A. only deals with those on an introductory level. The B.A. might be more accurately termed "government studies"; international studies, history of politics, and public administration are related fields.
I don't use an automated dialer. I don't dial phone numbers that are not made public by the registered voter. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm not interested in talking to people who wouldn't like to be talked to.
It's a long-established right to be able to contact people. I mean, it's an opt-out kind of thing, necessarily. In my opinion it's right that I am entitled to share my opinion with people unless they tell me they wouldn't like to hear it on their phone or at their house. People are free to not answer their phones, or doors, or to hang up, or to slam their door in my face, or to install guard posts or signs that read "no trespassing" or "authorized personnel only" or whatnot. If upon a phone call or door-to-door visit you make it clear you would like no further contact that's your right and I'm obliged to comply. If I do not it's your right to petition the government to intervene. But like I said. I don't want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to. There are people who would like to be talked to, or don't mind it, at least. I don't have a better way to differentiate the two than what people tell me.
I think it's discourteous. You may disagree. Here's an example of the beginning a phone call from me:
(ring)
"Hello?"
"Hi, is this Carl Weathers?"
"Yes, it is."
"Hi, Carl. My name is Marcus. I'm a volunteer with the Idaho Democratic Party and I wonder if I may ask you a few quick questions."
At this point Carl may respond with a curt "no" and hang up if he so pleases, as some do. No sooner than I had said "Democratic" to this one lady than did she interrupt me with an "I'm not interested in donating any money" and then hung up on me. I'm not doing fundraising, I"m doing polling. I will refuse to do fundraising over the phone to registered voters. If somebody's a registered Democrat and they're contributed in the past I may change my mind. But that's a hypothetical. I thought it was discourteous. I don't think it's discourteous to call someone and ask about political issues. I'm not doing automated dialing, the lists are from the list of registered voters. I call during the evening because that's when people are home. I do not call after 8:00. Ignoring my calls is your right, as is hanging up on me... as is being discourteous. I think we're basically on common ground here with maybe some ideological differences. I'm not interested in speaking to people at inconvenient times. I don't wish to interrupt your dinner. I do wish to ask your opinion. If you wouldn't like me to do that then say so. I'm forthright, I'll comply with reasonable requests, but if I may call back at a better time I would like to. That's all.
I didn't mean to complain that I'm not getting paid. If that were an issue I wouldn't be doing this; I thought that was apparent or at least implicit. What I'm saying is I'm not paid to call or visit people, I'm doing it because of personal conviction. Whether that makes me more or less virtuous is your opinion.
"Fucking moron," huh. I don't have a J.D. yet, but I believe that's an argumentum ad hominem.
It is, in fact, my right to call people and to knock on their doors. Similarly they have a right to not answer their phone (if they're concerned about per-minute charges), and they have a right to not answer their door, and they have a right to hang up, and they have a right to slam the door in my face. They don't have a right to censor my beliefs, they don't have a right to assault me. They do have a right to their own beliefs.
If you don't think that a freedom of speech right held by telemarketers is different at all from the right to petition one's countrymen for better government, maybe you should try petitioning China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia for citizenship. Oh, wait, you espouse a right to be left alone. Sorry, I don't know what to recommend to you, then. Maybe there's some vacancies in Canada, or Greenland, or the Antarctic.