If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
- Wireless Industry Now Claims 5G Will Miraculously Help Fix Climate Change
- New Bill Claims To Ban 'Surveillance Advertising,' But Doesn't Actually Do It
- Airline CEOs Freak Out Over 5G Despite Limited Evidence Of Real World Harm
- Senator Blumenthal Blames TikTok... Due To A Popular And Widely Championed Science Experiment Gone Wrong
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 ]