Is The Do Not Call List A Threat To Startups?
from the say-what?!? dept
This is just one of those days with plenty of bizarre logic stories. Here's a commentary from someone suggesting that the national "do not call" list is a threat to our startups. The writer throws up all the red herrings (lost jobs! environmentally destructive!) which have all been deconstructed before and aren't worth discussing again. Then, he makes the odd leap from people not wanting to be bothered at dinnertime by boiler room operations to suggesting that startups won't be able to survive if they can't telemarket or spam people. Say what? What startups really built their market around telemarketing and spamming? A smart business knows that building a market and getting attention isn't about bothering people, but offering customers something they want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Do Not Call" Argument is Thin on Logic
"However, the world is full of unpleasant things (Madonna, for example). Restricting access to marketing channels, especially for young companies, is a counterproductive restriction of free speech." - William Blundon, News.com, 09/10/03.
To start, this world is full of umpleasant things, including the twisted logic in this article.
First, Madonna is trying to break into my house and sing to me. She is not intruding into my life at her whim. I get to choose when I want to listen to Madonna. I can turn her off and shut her down instantly. Unless telemarketers are willing to absorb the costs of my telephone bill, they are not entitled to abuse my equipment or time whenever they desire. This is not about freedom of speech: this is about control of resources and the telemarketers want you to believe they have the right to control items you own and services you have purchased.
The second assumption with which I have a problem is the notion that marketers have a greater range of free speech than anyone else. This is inferred in the last sentence of the above quote. Once again, I use the example of standing outside his house with a bullhorn. I would get arrested for disturbing the peace if I used such a tactic. Since that is the case, can I sue telemarketers for unfairly, without cause or warrant, for disturbing my peace? The fact that the marketers freedom of speech intrudes upon my right of peace (and privacy) is never mentioned in the article. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Once more, this is about control of resources, including the resource of humans who have to suffer the intrusions. I contend again that since telemarketers do not bear the cost of my telephone and telephone service, they are not entitled to use it as they see fit. I purchased it for my convenience, not theirs.
Finally, I highly doubt Will Rogers would have liked this man by virtue of his reasoning. Thus, the old addage would be violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]