Why the hell do you assume I'm a telemarketer, or spammer, or whatever, just because I believe in a broad definition of free speech, and strict limitation of government powers?
I might just as well call you a fascist tyrant, it's just as accurate.
But I guess, since a lot of people want it, it must not only be a "good thing," but also the "right thing."
Just because it's popular, and you don't want any intrusions into your safe little basement, doesn't mean that the government should be involved in restricting communication.
"Nope, I would be trespassing on private property"
Not if you're on public property -- on the street, for example. You don't have to open the gate, or pick up the phone, to allow me in.
"It's the PEOPLE who are limiting that communication, not the government. They choose to not receive that communication, and you should just learn to accept that fact."
The government is administering limitation of communication, regardless of who chose to initiate the limiting. When are you going to address this? Regardless of any other part of your argument, you are asking the government to limit communication made by others, on your behalf.
"And in this case, the people voluntarily give the government control"
Some people voluntarily give the government control over what other people can do.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Any time you want to give government the power to control communications of any sort, you have to look at who is being deprived of their rights, or who could potentially be deprived of their rights.
When there are other simple solutions (such as free unlisted numbers, along with enforcement of positive denial), why should we, the people, allow the government any sort of control whatsoever over this form of communication?
By giving out your number, or having it listed in the telephone directory, you have put it in the public domain.
"The government doesn't decide to filter the calls, the person does! The government merely offers a convenient tool to do it.
"
And the government administers that tool. The government requires organizations to check the government list.
"When you tell me to stop, I'll jsut pass the megaphone to my coworker. After you tell him to stop, we will send a third person to do the "communicating". And you will have to tell each of them to stop communicating with you.
"
No, since they are part of whatever organization. And there is no reasonable way for you to block out the noise, whereas with a phone, you don't have to listen.
"Like it or not, many people think that your organisation (whatever it might be) is an annoying pain in the ass.
"
Again, I'm not part of any organization that does coldcalling. I've done it in the past, on local issues, but am not likely to do it again in the future.
We fundamentally disagree on whether the government should be allowed to stifle communication, with or without permission, that can be used for political discourse.
"Tough luck for you and other telemarketers, but that's just the way it is."
I'm not a telemarketer. Never will be. Stop making assumptions about me.
Yes, the people are asking not to be called. I have no problem with that. But the government is involved by administering the list. I don't think this is a function government should be doing, as it has the potential to limit valid political discourse. There is also potential for abuse.
"What makes you think that a 1-to-1 service provided by a private corporation, paid by private individual is a "public medium"?"
Because it is a government-subsidized and regulated monopoly. Because your correspondence travels over a shared medium.
It's not a 1-to-1 service either. A call goes through switches and routers before reaching you. Why don't you make your telcomm provider give you the protection you want, instead of having the government step in?
"Why is it so damn difficult for you and your henchmen "
Me and my henchmen? So now I have some nefarious army at my disposal? Now I'm in charge of a telemarketing operation? I'm an individual who has no connections to telemarketing at all... and probably never will.
"whereas the organisation should be free to harass people."
I never said that, you asshat. You are protected from harassment by law, and I have no problem with that.
" I have no right to start shouting in front of your front-door"
Actually, you do have that right, until I ask you to stop.
"So, when the person tells YOU not to call him, you just tell your co-worker to call instead? And so forth and so forth"
Me, as in the hypothetical interest/company I'd be representing if I were a telemarketer. Not "me" as in the individual.
"The person has already told that he does not want to be called, by placing his number on DNC-list"
Your circular logic defies interpretation. The government-run DNC list is justified because people put their name on it?
I don't have a problem with people letting it be known that they don't want to be called -- I have a problem with government administering a function that has the potential to limit political communication.
"You are just annoyed because one universal Do Not Call-list is the most convenient way for regular people to let their wishes to be heard. it's very easy for them to have their number added to that list, and that is why you oppose it."
BS. Don't assume you know why I do not like the universal DNC, especially when your supposed reasoning has nothing at all to do with what I have posted.
The problem I have with your "simple solution," I'll repeat, is that the government should not be involved in regulating individual pieces of correspondence. By mandating that telemarketers and political activists check the list, that is exactly what they are doing.
Here's another simple solution: Make unlisted numbers free. Make it illegal to call unlisted numbers unless you are authorized to call a specific number by the owner of the number.
Then your ability to not be bothered lies entirely in your hands, without the government requiring organiztions to check with them before calling.
You don't have to open your gate (which separates your property from public property, if placed properly) to those people. In the same way, you don't have to pick up the phone. I have always maintained that if someone requests not to be contacted by a particular group, that the group should not be allowed to contact that person.
I am not saying that harassment should be legal; the same protections we have against harassment now would be fine, as long as they were enforced properly.
Again, please do not ascribe points of view to me that I do not have.
Again, I have to stress that those agendas are not necessarily self-centered.
I don't really care why you have a phone -- for business, for convenience, or whatever. But the telephone is a means of communication, and I don't believe the government should be involved in regulating who may use the phone to contact anyone, other than to protect against other crimes (like real harassment).
I think unlisted numbers should be free to those who want them -- then you can have your precious freedom from being called by unknowns, since you will be in control of who has your number.
I am still very uncomfortable with government managing any aspect of communication in this manner. I think it is imperative that government is not given any tools by which they can hinder communication.
I understand the difference between push and pull technologies, but I don't think that makes a difference here. I don't think you can apply trespassing theory here in that way, since the recipient of the call could choose not to open the gate.
The call is still routed by a vendor, who could choose to implement blocking of these types of calls if they so chose. It wouldn't be perfect, but I'm sure a government system would not be administered perfectly either.
I would like to see the following happen, in which case I think we'd see a lot of these calls disappear:
No spoofing of caller ID
Continued enforcement of positive denial (you tell a group not to, they can't call you)
Free unlisted telephone numbers
Where do you get off assuming I would not respect her wishes if she told me not to contact her?
One: her telephone number is common knowledge. If it were unlisted (which I believe should be mandated as free to those who wish it), I would not have the number.
Two: "You don't have the right to use my equipment to transmit it, however, and that's the issue here." The phone lines outside her house are not her property. If she allows her receiver to receive my call, that is her choice. She allowed the call to get to her phone. There is no violation of property rights. By that logic, telephone and radio advertising violates property rights -- for that matter, so does television programming.
Three: ""It's her phone, and she has no more obligation to invite you to call her" Why should government have a role in limiting speech? I agree, if she asks me not to, I shouldn't -- and I wouldn't (contrary to your assumption). But the government should not have a role in regulating this for reasonable political activity.
I support legal recourse for not abiding by an individuals choice to not be contacted again.
I do not support blanket DNC because it assigns the responsibility of denying calls to the government. Please do not make assumptions about what I do, or do not do, or about what I believe. My previous comments in this thread have been contextural, and you obviously have no idea what I wrote in even my first comment.
>Of course; no argument. The only area of debate is, "what are and are not legitimate ways to reach out?" I feel that cold calling is not something that should be permitted without restrictions.
I agree, but the level of restrictions is the tough part. I think cold-calling should be valid, as long as you haven't been asked not to by the target. After all, people can keep their numbers unlisted, and refuse to give them out. I would like to see having an unlisted number be made free by law.
You're quite right on the question being: how much and by what method should government limit opportunities for campaigning?
My concern is that we already have limited exposure to varying points of view, and greater restrictions on telephone campaigning would make it much worse. I feel that we already enforceable statutes governing this, but that too few people choose to enforce their rights to not be re-contacted.
>Well, the -lines- are public. The receiver in my house is, in my opinion, a private thing, to which I allow limited public access.
I agree. But then, I should be able to limit what I choose to receive. But I don't think this is the same as the government enforcing limits on what is broadcast to me.
My real concern with the debate over the DNC registry, here in the US anyway, is that people are choosing comfort over freedom. I prefer not to generalize that way, but it is really how I see the debate. I am very worried that people will allow restrictions on valid communication[1] just because they don't want to be bothered.
[1] That's a difficult distinction, though, what is valid political contact, and what is not?
Am I free to contact others regarding a political issue?
Am I free to contact them even when they have expressly asked me, personally, not to?
Should I assign the responsibility of filtering my phone calls to the government?
Should the government be able to obstruct me from attempting to contact people, if I do so in a reasonable and responsible manner for political purposes, if those people have asked, in general, not to be contacted?
Should the government be involved in deciding what is political activity and what is commercial activity?
Can the government decide who is excluded from cold-calling based upon whether or not they are a political group?
Will increased restrictions on cold-calling negatively affect the political process?
Is it constitutional to ban, for a subset of the population who chooses it, a method of communicating for political purposes?
Can government be trusted to mediate a DNC registry with regard to political activity?
Is government even capable of maintaining an enforceable DNC registry? What about international call centers?
There are so many questions that need to be addressed about the DNC registry, that I'm afraid people just don't think about. I feel that the knee-jerk reaction is not "Why should they be allowed to bother me?" but instead, "They shouldn't be allowed to bother me!"
"just inhibition of being harassed by psychopathic sellers and politicians"
Not true. There are valid groups out there working for solutions to real problems.
"I shouldn't have to filter calls each and every time the phone rings"
You don't have to filter calls if you don't want to -- feel free to answer every call.
My understanding is that you believe you have an inalienable right to not be approached by anyone for anything -- is this correct?
I disagree with this fundamentally -- I believe you have the right to decline taking those calls. I am even willing to grant that you should be able to have a specific group not contact you if you don't want it.
But, I cannot support legislation that stops people from attempting to communicate.
Sure, there will be abuses of the right of people to initiate communication-- which is why we have legal recourse when it is abused.
If you don't want outside groups to contact you, get an unlisted number. Don't give it out to people you don't trust. Isn't that the point of unlisted numbers?
Yes, but what some of the people want may not be within their rights to do. It is within your right to tell someone you don't want to be contacted; I do not believe it is within government's rights to tell anyone what they can or cannot communicate, barring harassment, or other lawbreaking activity.
A single call does not constitute harassment in my book, especially when laws already exist to prevent an organization from contacting you again.
I do believe that groups and individuals do have the right to attempt to call me.
I have the right to filter them out, same as you.
There's no disrespect there. Your stance involves disrespect -- you are issuing a blanket stance that anyone who wants to contact you is not worth your time.
You could, of course, pre-emptively contact a group and ask them not to call you. I think there is a demand for a private DNC registry. But again, I do not think it is government's role to do so.
I don't get upset about a list of people who don't want to be contacted. I get upset over the government enforcing anything having to do with private communication between two parties that does not otherwise break the law.
You don't want me to call you? I have no problem with that, and will respect that.
But the notoriously bureaucratically inept federal government administering a list of people, their telephone numbers, and whether they want to be contacted or not?
That, I can't abide -- both because I think it won't be done properly, and because I don't like government restriction of speech.
Again, please reread my original post. I do not believe anyone should be harassed by anyone when they have expressed that they don't want to be contacted by that person/group.
"OK, as soon as we make caller ID spoofing a federal crime, along with an identifier flag that labels you as a charity, business, individual, or political group. Then I can use my own ability to filter my own calls according to the appropriate category. That do it for you? "
Yes, that would do it.
I don't think the DNC list is a valid alternative, because it limits the rights of others.
Enable me to filter what calls I receive; don't deny me (or anyone) the right to make calls that are otherwise legal.
Hmm, not sure what point you are trying to make there. That my argument makes sense, so the only way to attack my argument is to call me a stalker?
Not once have I defended the right of an entity to harass someone.
I believe that an individual has the right to have an organiztion stop contacting them.
I also believe, however, that people (which is what organizations are comprised of, no?) have the right to try to contact other people about political issues. This is called 'freedom of speech'. Now, someone can refuse to listen -- they have the right to do that.
So, I guess if I'm a stalker, you're a totalitarian SOB who wants to deny the right of free speech?
The conclusion I just jumped to is as valid as the one you jumped to about me.
I don't like getting telemarketing calls. But I believe it's their right to try and contact me, just as it's my right to tell them not to contact me.
The selfish thing to do is to not allow any groups to contact me at all. The even more selfish thing is to promote a tool by which the government can limit political campaigning.
And where is the logical leap that allows you to assume that I am a scammer? Or that I harass people?
I never said that people should be permitted to harass others.
There is a line between contacting people and harassing them. You apparently draw the line at any attempt to contact. I disagree, and so has the federal government, several times.
I do believe that any organization should not be allowed to contact you, if you have asked them not to. I just don't beleieve that blanket de-authorization should be enforced by the government.
Boy, pretty vitriolic today, aren't you? Since when do a bunch of flaming ad hominem attacks have anything to do with the issue at hand?
"How about by the fact that citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while businesses, charities, and political organizations do not? At least here in the states. Their "needs" don't matter for shit.
"
Actually, all of the organizations you mention DO have rights guaranteed by the Constitution -- the rights granted to the citizens that are members of the organizations. Political organizations especially are protected by constitutional law.
Before you get your panties even more bunched up, why don't you take a cold shower or something?
Then, when you've flipped the idiot switch off, why don't you read what I wrote again and bother to appreciate that freedom of speech governs government restriction of communication over public utility.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell do you assume I'm a telemarketer, or spammer, or whatever, just because I believe in a broad definition of free speech, and strict limitation of government powers?
I might just as well call you a fascist tyrant, it's just as accurate.
But I guess, since a lot of people want it, it must not only be a "good thing," but also the "right thing."
Just because it's popular, and you don't want any intrusions into your safe little basement, doesn't mean that the government should be involved in restricting communication.
"Nope, I would be trespassing on private property"
Not if you're on public property -- on the street, for example. You don't have to open the gate, or pick up the phone, to allow me in.
"It's the PEOPLE who are limiting that communication, not the government. They choose to not receive that communication, and you should just learn to accept that fact."
The government is administering limitation of communication, regardless of who chose to initiate the limiting. When are you going to address this? Regardless of any other part of your argument, you are asking the government to limit communication made by others, on your behalf.
"And in this case, the people voluntarily give the government control"
Some people voluntarily give the government control over what other people can do.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Any time you want to give government the power to control communications of any sort, you have to look at who is being deprived of their rights, or who could potentially be deprived of their rights.
When there are other simple solutions (such as free unlisted numbers, along with enforcement of positive denial), why should we, the people, allow the government any sort of control whatsoever over this form of communication?
By giving out your number, or having it listed in the telephone directory, you have put it in the public domain.
"The government doesn't decide to filter the calls, the person does! The government merely offers a convenient tool to do it. "
And the government administers that tool. The government requires organizations to check the government list.
"When you tell me to stop, I'll jsut pass the megaphone to my coworker. After you tell him to stop, we will send a third person to do the "communicating". And you will have to tell each of them to stop communicating with you. "
No, since they are part of whatever organization. And there is no reasonable way for you to block out the noise, whereas with a phone, you don't have to listen.
"Like it or not, many people think that your organisation (whatever it might be) is an annoying pain in the ass. "
Again, I'm not part of any organization that does coldcalling. I've done it in the past, on local issues, but am not likely to do it again in the future.
We fundamentally disagree on whether the government should be allowed to stifle communication, with or without permission, that can be used for political discourse.
"Telemarketing has NEVER been about "freedom of speech". "
Wrong. Telemarketing as a business act, yes. Telemarketing as a political outreach tool, no.
Please see all my other posts to your responses.
"Tough luck for you and other telemarketers, but that's just the way it is."
I'm not a telemarketer. Never will be. Stop making assumptions about me.
Yes, the people are asking not to be called. I have no problem with that. But the government is involved by administering the list. I don't think this is a function government should be doing, as it has the potential to limit valid political discourse. There is also potential for abuse.
"What makes you think that a 1-to-1 service provided by a private corporation, paid by private individual is a "public medium"?"
Because it is a government-subsidized and regulated monopoly. Because your correspondence travels over a shared medium.
It's not a 1-to-1 service either. A call goes through switches and routers before reaching you. Why don't you make your telcomm provider give you the protection you want, instead of having the government step in?
"Why is it so damn difficult for you and your henchmen "
Me and my henchmen? So now I have some nefarious army at my disposal? Now I'm in charge of a telemarketing operation? I'm an individual who has no connections to telemarketing at all... and probably never will.
"whereas the organisation should be free to harass people."
I never said that, you asshat. You are protected from harassment by law, and I have no problem with that.
" I have no right to start shouting in front of your front-door"
Actually, you do have that right, until I ask you to stop.
"So, when the person tells YOU not to call him, you just tell your co-worker to call instead? And so forth and so forth"
Me, as in the hypothetical interest/company I'd be representing if I were a telemarketer. Not "me" as in the individual.
"The person has already told that he does not want to be called, by placing his number on DNC-list"
Your circular logic defies interpretation. The government-run DNC list is justified because people put their name on it?
I don't have a problem with people letting it be known that they don't want to be called -- I have a problem with government administering a function that has the potential to limit political communication.
"You are just annoyed because one universal Do Not Call-list is the most convenient way for regular people to let their wishes to be heard. it's very easy for them to have their number added to that list, and that is why you oppose it."
BS. Don't assume you know why I do not like the universal DNC, especially when your supposed reasoning has nothing at all to do with what I have posted.
The problem I have with your "simple solution," I'll repeat, is that the government should not be involved in regulating individual pieces of correspondence. By mandating that telemarketers and political activists check the list, that is exactly what they are doing.
Here's another simple solution: Make unlisted numbers free. Make it illegal to call unlisted numbers unless you are authorized to call a specific number by the owner of the number.
Then your ability to not be bothered lies entirely in your hands, without the government requiring organiztions to check with them before calling.
Yes, all that you say applies to telephone calls.
You don't have to open your gate (which separates your property from public property, if placed properly) to those people. In the same way, you don't have to pick up the phone. I have always maintained that if someone requests not to be contacted by a particular group, that the group should not be allowed to contact that person.
I am not saying that harassment should be legal; the same protections we have against harassment now would be fine, as long as they were enforced properly.
Again, please do not ascribe points of view to me that I do not have.
Again, I have to stress that those agendas are not necessarily self-centered.
I don't really care why you have a phone -- for business, for convenience, or whatever. But the telephone is a means of communication, and I don't believe the government should be involved in regulating who may use the phone to contact anyone, other than to protect against other crimes (like real harassment).
I think unlisted numbers should be free to those who want them -- then you can have your precious freedom from being called by unknowns, since you will be in control of who has your number.
I am still very uncomfortable with government managing any aspect of communication in this manner. I think it is imperative that government is not given any tools by which they can hinder communication.
I understand the difference between push and pull technologies, but I don't think that makes a difference here. I don't think you can apply trespassing theory here in that way, since the recipient of the call could choose not to open the gate.
The call is still routed by a vendor, who could choose to implement blocking of these types of calls if they so chose. It wouldn't be perfect, but I'm sure a government system would not be administered perfectly either.
I would like to see the following happen, in which case I think we'd see a lot of these calls disappear:
No spoofing of caller ID
Continued enforcement of positive denial (you tell a group not to, they can't call you)
Free unlisted telephone numbers
Where do you get off assuming I would not respect her wishes if she told me not to contact her?
One: her telephone number is common knowledge. If it were unlisted (which I believe should be mandated as free to those who wish it), I would not have the number.
Two: "You don't have the right to use my equipment to transmit it, however, and that's the issue here."
The phone lines outside her house are not her property. If she allows her receiver to receive my call, that is her choice. She allowed the call to get to her phone. There is no violation of property rights. By that logic, telephone and radio advertising violates property rights -- for that matter, so does television programming.
Three: ""It's her phone, and she has no more obligation to invite you to call her"
Why should government have a role in limiting speech? I agree, if she asks me not to, I shouldn't -- and I wouldn't (contrary to your assumption). But the government should not have a role in regulating this for reasonable political activity.
I support legal recourse for not abiding by an individuals choice to not be contacted again.
I do not support blanket DNC because it assigns the responsibility of denying calls to the government. Please do not make assumptions about what I do, or do not do, or about what I believe. My previous comments in this thread have been contextural, and you obviously have no idea what I wrote in even my first comment.
>Of course; no argument. The only area of debate is, "what are and are not legitimate ways to reach out?" I feel that cold calling is not something that should be permitted without restrictions.
I agree, but the level of restrictions is the tough part. I think cold-calling should be valid, as long as you haven't been asked not to by the target. After all, people can keep their numbers unlisted, and refuse to give them out. I would like to see having an unlisted number be made free by law.
You're quite right on the question being: how much and by what method should government limit opportunities for campaigning?
My concern is that we already have limited exposure to varying points of view, and greater restrictions on telephone campaigning would make it much worse. I feel that we already enforceable statutes governing this, but that too few people choose to enforce their rights to not be re-contacted.
>Well, the -lines- are public. The receiver in my house is, in my opinion, a private thing, to which I allow limited public access.
I agree. But then, I should be able to limit what I choose to receive. But I don't think this is the same as the government enforcing limits on what is broadcast to me.
My real concern with the debate over the DNC registry, here in the US anyway, is that people are choosing comfort over freedom. I prefer not to generalize that way, but it is really how I see the debate. I am very worried that people will allow restrictions on valid communication[1] just because they don't want to be bothered.
[1] That's a difficult distinction, though, what is valid political contact, and what is not?
Am I free to contact others regarding a political issue?
Am I free to contact them even when they have expressly asked me, personally, not to?
Should I assign the responsibility of filtering my phone calls to the government?
Should the government be able to obstruct me from attempting to contact people, if I do so in a reasonable and responsible manner for political purposes, if those people have asked, in general, not to be contacted?
Should the government be involved in deciding what is political activity and what is commercial activity?
Can the government decide who is excluded from cold-calling based upon whether or not they are a political group?
Will increased restrictions on cold-calling negatively affect the political process?
Is it constitutional to ban, for a subset of the population who chooses it, a method of communicating for political purposes?
Can government be trusted to mediate a DNC registry with regard to political activity?
Is government even capable of maintaining an enforceable DNC registry? What about international call centers?
There are so many questions that need to be addressed about the DNC registry, that I'm afraid people just don't think about. I feel that the knee-jerk reaction is not "Why should they be allowed to bother me?" but instead, "They shouldn't be allowed to bother me!"
"just inhibition of being harassed by psychopathic sellers and politicians"
Not true. There are valid groups out there working for solutions to real problems.
"I shouldn't have to filter calls each and every time the phone rings"
You don't have to filter calls if you don't want to -- feel free to answer every call.
My understanding is that you believe you have an inalienable right to not be approached by anyone for anything -- is this correct?
I disagree with this fundamentally -- I believe you have the right to decline taking those calls. I am even willing to grant that you should be able to have a specific group not contact you if you don't want it.
But, I cannot support legislation that stops people from attempting to communicate.
Sure, there will be abuses of the right of people to initiate communication-- which is why we have legal recourse when it is abused.
If you don't want outside groups to contact you, get an unlisted number. Don't give it out to people you don't trust. Isn't that the point of unlisted numbers?
If you want to be left alone, don't pick up your phone. Or establish a second line. Or don't get a phone at all.
re: private do-not-call list: We have commercial spam filters. Why not commercial telemarketer filters?
Please explain to me the justification for the federal government taking part in a method by which free speech is inhibited?
You have already been giventhe tools to prevent anyone from harassing you. Why not use them?
Hasn't the free market established services to filter spam?
With telemarketing, a market solution could work better, because it costs more for the telemarketers.
I still stand by my belief that the government should not be involved in pre-emptively restricting communication.
Yes, but what some of the people want may not be within their rights to do. It is within your right to tell someone you don't want to be contacted; I do not believe it is within government's rights to tell anyone what they can or cannot communicate, barring harassment, or other lawbreaking activity.
A single call does not constitute harassment in my book, especially when laws already exist to prevent an organization from contacting you again.
I don't like being called, never said I did.
I do believe that groups and individuals do have the right to attempt to call me.
I have the right to filter them out, same as you.
There's no disrespect there. Your stance involves disrespect -- you are issuing a blanket stance that anyone who wants to contact you is not worth your time.
You could, of course, pre-emptively contact a group and ask them not to call you. I think there is a demand for a private DNC registry. But again, I do not think it is government's role to do so.
I don't get upset about a list of people who don't want to be contacted. I get upset over the government enforcing anything having to do with private communication between two parties that does not otherwise break the law.
You don't want me to call you? I have no problem with that, and will respect that.
But the notoriously bureaucratically inept federal government administering a list of people, their telephone numbers, and whether they want to be contacted or not?
That, I can't abide -- both because I think it won't be done properly, and because I don't like government restriction of speech.
Again, please reread my original post. I do not believe anyone should be harassed by anyone when they have expressed that they don't want to be contacted by that person/group.
"OK, as soon as we make caller ID spoofing a federal crime, along with an identifier flag that labels you as a charity, business, individual, or political group. Then I can use my own ability to filter my own calls according to the appropriate category. That do it for you? "
Yes, that would do it.
I don't think the DNC list is a valid alternative, because it limits the rights of others.
Enable me to filter what calls I receive; don't deny me (or anyone) the right to make calls that are otherwise legal.
Hmm, not sure what point you are trying to make there. That my argument makes sense, so the only way to attack my argument is to call me a stalker?
Not once have I defended the right of an entity to harass someone.
I believe that an individual has the right to have an organiztion stop contacting them.
I also believe, however, that people (which is what organizations are comprised of, no?) have the right to try to contact other people about political issues. This is called 'freedom of speech'. Now, someone can refuse to listen -- they have the right to do that.
So, I guess if I'm a stalker, you're a totalitarian SOB who wants to deny the right of free speech?
The conclusion I just jumped to is as valid as the one you jumped to about me.
I don't like getting telemarketing calls. But I believe it's their right to try and contact me, just as it's my right to tell them not to contact me.
The selfish thing to do is to not allow any groups to contact me at all. The even more selfish thing is to promote a tool by which the government can limit political campaigning.
And where is the logical leap that allows you to assume that I am a scammer? Or that I harass people?
I never said that people should be permitted to harass others.
There is a line between contacting people and harassing them. You apparently draw the line at any attempt to contact. I disagree, and so has the federal government, several times.
I do believe that any organization should not be allowed to contact you, if you have asked them not to. I just don't beleieve that blanket de-authorization should be enforced by the government.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I threw back an ad hominem attack -- but it felt really good to do so.
And about the 1st amendment not guaranteeing the right to an audience, that still applies here. Hang up the phone.
And the phone system, while not strictly a public utility, has a government-regulated monopoly.
Sorry for being not 100% accurate on that, but maybe in this case, you should be asking the phone company, not the government, to filter your calls.
Yes, yes I do.
You chose to label all political organizations as selfish, and lumped me in that category.
I am politically active, and not for selfish purposes.
YOU need to get over yourself and stop acting like the purpose of government is to keep you free from hassle.
Boy, pretty vitriolic today, aren't you? Since when do a bunch of flaming ad hominem attacks have anything to do with the issue at hand?
"How about by the fact that citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while businesses, charities, and political organizations do not? At least here in the states. Their "needs" don't matter for shit. "
Actually, all of the organizations you mention DO have rights guaranteed by the Constitution -- the rights granted to the citizens that are members of the organizations. Political organizations especially are protected by constitutional law.
Before you get your panties even more bunched up, why don't you take a cold shower or something?
Then, when you've flipped the idiot switch off, why don't you read what I wrote again and bother to appreciate that freedom of speech governs government restriction of communication over public utility.