It's not that complicated.

From the Sunday Denver Post.

The third court ruling in four days added to the chaos surrounding the list on Friday, as two major telemarketing groups announced conflicting policies and the Federal Trade Commission issued somewhat contradictory statements.

Friday's ruling clearly was a loss for telemarketers, but it was too early to know what will happen Wednesday, the day the government had planned to activate the list, government officials and an industry lawyer said.

Too many federal judges have filed too many decisions too quickly for anyone to know how to proceed, they said.

The common objection cited to the 'no-call' legislation is that it violates the 1st Amendment rights of the telemarketing industry.

Shall we?

Amendment I - Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From the 1920's, when some standardization of the technology and the utility of the telephone was recognized, the United States government granted a near monopoly to AT&T. This allowed the expansion of the communications network through which you are most likely accessing this mess of a blog.

The importance of this expansion cannot be overstated. It allowed businesses to prosper, the economy to grow, and lives to be saved through almost universal access to almost instant communication. By 1984, the technology had advanced, the infrastructure solidified, and the utility recognized, that U.S. courts forced the end of the AT&T monopoly. While the importance of the network was recognized, the government felt it could no longer justify the monopoly and it's supression of other companies getting in to the business.

This has proven accurate in the explosion of services and technology now available through the phone lines.

Apparently, somewhere north of 51 million people think they should have a little more control over those phone lines coming in to their houses. Mainly because of the widespread abuse of those lines by - yes - telemarketers.

Now.

Let's review.

Amendment I - Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No part of the 'no-call' list prohibits, or otherwise abridges the freedom of, the people employed by telemarketing firms from advertising their various products. They can go door-to-door, stand on a corner with a sign and, yes, they can even call people. Unless those people have given notice that they do not wish to be called.

Here's where it gets easy.

I can go down to the local hardware store and for less than $5 buy a sign.

NO SOLICITING

Get it?

It is a visible assertion that if you are selling something, do not knock on my door.

In fact, in many localities it is a crime to ignore that sign.

The 'NO-CALL' list is the electronic verion of the 'NO SOLICITING' sign.

Comments

[Ranjit]

The 1st amendment argument has no problem with your analogy to a no soliciting sign. The reason there's a problem is that the government only shows this no soliciting sign to certain groups. Other approved groups, like non-profits and political campaigns get to ignore that sign.

There are actually precedents involving the Jehovah's Witness's in which judges ruled that the government can't selectively ban solicitors. It's all or nothing. A do-not-call list with no loopholes doesn't have any 1st amendment problems.

[Jim]

That's true. The Denver court is absolutely correct in putting a hold in on that point. The no-call lists must be equally enforced.

Personally, I can't see why those groups think they would have any special status with me, whether or not they were able to garner that standing with some authority. I donate to no cause over the phone or at the door.