Don't call us, we'll call you. -- or -- How wrong might go right.

[vakkotaur]

So now another judge has stalled the national Do Not Call list. This time it's a claim about the first amendment and free speech issues. I find that rather silly as the list is opt-in and people can decide for themselves if they want their number(s) listed or not. The first amendment says people can speak, but it does not say that anyone is obligated to listen. This looks like a property rights issue to me. My phone, my rules. Sure, the callers pay for the call, but that doesn't compensate the called for the interruption and the loss of utility of the phone service for which they pay. Caller ID should not be the necessity it sadly seems to have become.

But going back to the speech objection, it comes from the loopholes that were left in the DNC list. Pollsters can still call. Charities can still call. Political campaign calls are still permitted. And that's the problem, it seems. One type of speech appears to be limited and regulated while other types are not. The solution is to close off the loopholes and make no distinction between commercial calls and the others. The end result would be the DNC list everyone (except those who live to annoy others) wanted in the first place.

I'm not going to bet on it, but it was interesting to see congress react with amazing speed recently to pass a bill that made it clear "Yes, we damn well meant for this to happen!" So there is some pressure there and it is being felt. As for calling the judge, while perhaps somewhat amusing, it's a waste of time and effort. Seems to me it'd be better to call congressmen and senators and point out the desired solution: Close the loopholes and make a truly effective DNC list.

Comments

[jmaynard.livejournal.com]

The general consensus is that a DNC list that included politicians would be unconstitutional because political speech has special status under the First Amendment, as it's precisely the kind of speech that is the most precious to protect our other rights. Thus, any form of regulatio of that must withstand extra scrutiny.

I don't quite beleive that argument would stand in the face of a property rights argument, but that's why it's generally not regulated.