WWTBAM Bored

I understand that a business with whom I am affiliated (my bank, say) is allowed to contact me.

But what makes it OK for political campaigns to call us every five minutes? The whole point of registering with the Do Not Call List was to NOT get these calls.

The short answer is that the laws governing the Do Not Call list were created by politicians, who did not want to be subject to the laws they created.

Unfortunately there are exemptions written into the law. Political campaigns and charities are two of them. I think you can request them to remove your phone number from their lists when they call, but that assumes that it's not one of the robo-calls.

The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If your phone company has the "privacy manager" (or similar) function, that eliminates a lot of additional calls. Basically if they show up as unknown or blocked, they get routed through an automated system where they either enter a code or have to state their name and then you decide if you accept or not.

I also loved the telezapper, I'm not sure if it's still available but I turn mine on from time to time if I'm getting annoying calls.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

I get what you're saying Marley, but you are free to not answer the phone. Or to hang up as soon as you realize it's political. Or to make the conversation so uncomfortable that they'll voluntarily take you off the list!!!

I personally don't answer the phone unless I recognize the number. Unless I'm in a feisty mood and then I'll answer and when they ask for me, say "hold on, I'll go get her" and then put the phone down and try to guess how long they'll hang on. Then I rejoice knowing I just hurt their call stats for the day a little bit!

MarleysGh0st wrote: Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

Freedom of Speech includes the right to be free of government sanctions if you choose to ignore the wishes of a telephone subscriber.

sunflower wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

I get what you're saying Marley, but you are free to not answer the phone. Or to hang up as soon as you realize it's political. Or to make the conversation so uncomfortable that they'll voluntarily take you off the list!!!

I personally don't answer the phone unless I recognize the number. Unless I'm in a feisty mood and then I'll answer and when they ask for me, say "hold on, I'll go get her" and then put the phone down and try to guess how long they'll hang on. Then I rejoice knowing I just hurt their call stats for the day a little bit!

I'm not really making this one of "my" issues, but SC's short answer, that politicians don't want to be subject to the laws they pass, is itself a cynical way of looking at things, so I'm just trying to examine the constitutional aspect of it.

Your suggestions are also somewhat cynical. (And, hey, I'm a cynic. I can admire cynicism.) They'd apply just as well to commercial calls, wouldn't they? But Congress has agreed that we have a right not to have our privacy intruded on in such a manner, even if we were free to not answer, hang up, or play mind games with the callers. We have a right not to be disturbed and not to have to pay for technology (such as Caller ID) to prevent such intrusions.

So, that said, I'm asking what makes political speech different.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

One of the anti-abortion groups made an automated phone call to my house a few years ago. If I recall correctly they rather graphically talked about partial birth abortions, etc. Emma answered the phone and it really upset her.

If I am paying for my phone line, my daughter should have the right to answer the phone without being terrified by a political campaign.

MarleysGh0st wrote:
I'm not really making this one of "my" issues, but SC's short answer, that politicians don't want to be subject to the laws they pass, is itself a cynical way of looking at things, so I'm just trying to examine the constitutional aspect of it.

My answer was cynical because I am cynical. I look upon the "political" exemption in the Do Not Call list exactly the way I look at the fact that Congress grants itself a retirement plan that is far superior to the Social Security System; a health care plan that covers far more than any other employer-provided health care plan; and franking privileges that are used and abused far beyond the official purposes for which they were intended. Etc.

Other calling exemptions are granted to charities and other non-profit institutions, including any college or university that you may have attended or with which you have had any previous connection. Undoubtedly there are additional exemptions, but I can't remember any at the moment.

I think I've gotten two political calls (that I know about. I don't have caller id so, if I'm not home, I don't know you called). I'm not sure who they were actually for, although both of them name checked Obama I'm not sure it was in a positive way.

They must really be going for the Hispanic vote here. One of them such a thick accent that I could barely understand what they were saying (for the 20 seconds that I listened) and the other one identified himself as "Joe Martinez, a plumber from Pueblo" and started saying something about Obama (for the 20 seconds that I listened).

MarleysGh0st wrote:

sunflower wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

I get what you're saying Marley, but you are free to not answer the phone. Or to hang up as soon as you realize it's political. Or to make the conversation so uncomfortable that they'll voluntarily take you off the list!!!

I personally don't answer the phone unless I recognize the number. Unless I'm in a feisty mood and then I'll answer and when they ask for me, say "hold on, I'll go get her" and then put the phone down and try to guess how long they'll hang on. Then I rejoice knowing I just hurt their call stats for the day a little bit!

I'm not really making this one of "my" issues, but SC's short answer, that politicians don't want to be subject to the laws they pass, is itself a cynical way of looking at things, so I'm just trying to examine the constitutional aspect of it.

Your suggestions are also somewhat cynical. (And, hey, I'm a cynic. I can admire cynicism.) They'd apply just as well to commercial calls, wouldn't they? But Congress has agreed that we have a right not to have our privacy intruded on in such a manner, even if we were free to not answer, hang up, or play mind games with the callers. We have a right not to be disturbed and not to have to pay for technology (such as Caller ID) to prevent such intrusions.

So, that said, I'm asking what makes political speech different.

You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What makes commercial speech different?"

Commercial speech has been defined (by Scalia, writing for the Court) as "speech that proposes a commercial transaction." It's different in part because commercial incentives make commercial speech much more robust than non-commercial speech. People who think that their speech will make them money will be much more resistant to having their speech "chilled."

So if telemarketers can't get to you via your phone, they have plenty of incentive to find other effective ways to get their message to you. Non-commercial speakers, on the other hand, are much more likely to just give up. --Bob

WheresFanny wrote: They must really be going for the Hispanic vote here. One of them such a thick accent that I could barely understand what they were saying (for the 20 seconds that I listened) and the other one identified himself as "Joe Martinez, a plumber from Pueblo" and started saying something about Obama (for the 20 seconds that I listened).

Joe the Plumber?

I thought he had a German surname and was from Ohio!

Bob78164 wrote:You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What makes commercial speech different?"

Commercial speech has been defined (by Scalia, writing for the Court) as "speech that proposes a commercial transaction." It's different in part because commercial incentives make commercial speech much more robust than non-commercial speech. People who think that their speech will make them money will be much more resistant to having their speech "chilled."

So if telemarketers can't get to you via your phone, they have plenty of incentive to find other effective ways to get their message to you. Non-commercial speakers, on the other hand, are much more likely to just give up. --Bob

I don't understand. Are you saying that the Do Not Call law has exemptions for politicians and charities because they don't care as much about completing those phone calls?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What makes commercial speech different?"

Commercial speech has been defined (by Scalia, writing for the Court) as "speech that proposes a commercial transaction." It's different in part because commercial incentives make commercial speech much more robust than non-commercial speech. People who think that their speech will make them money will be much more resistant to having their speech "chilled."

So if telemarketers can't get to you via your phone, they have plenty of incentive to find other effective ways to get their message to you. Non-commercial speakers, on the other hand, are much more likely to just give up. --Bob

I don't understand. Are you saying that the Do Not Call law has exemptions for politicians and charities because they don't care as much about completing those phone calls?

I think what he's saying is that there is a financial incentive for commercial entities to pursue you through other means, such as mail or email, which may incur extra costs. But political callers or not for profits often do not have the funds or resources to do so (okay - think local on political, I realize presidential candidates do have resources), so they are exempt and allowed to solicit by phone.

I might be wrong but that's how I read what Bob said.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

WheresFanny wrote: They must really be going for the Hispanic vote here. One of them such a thick accent that I could barely understand what they were saying (for the 20 seconds that I listened) and the other one identified himself as "Joe Martinez, a plumber from Pueblo" and started saying something about Obama (for the 20 seconds that I listened).

Joe the Plumber?

I thought he had a German surname and was from Ohio!

Yeah, but this is the Southwest. Sort of like how Mean Joe Greene is Giuseppe Verdi if he's pushing Coke in Italy.

Whether his name was REALLY Joe Martinez and he was REALLY a plumber, I don't know. They might have got him from the same casting agency where Michael Flatley picked up his accent.

I used to hand the phone to (then)wee James, and tell him that "this lady/man wants to know all about Thomas the Tank engine.

Then I would finish my chores

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What makes commercial speech different?"

Commercial speech has been defined (by Scalia, writing for the Court) as "speech that proposes a commercial transaction." It's different in part because commercial incentives make commercial speech much more robust than non-commercial speech. People who think that their speech will make them money will be much more resistant to having their speech "chilled."

So if telemarketers can't get to you via your phone, they have plenty of incentive to find other effective ways to get their message to you. Non-commercial speakers, on the other hand, are much more likely to just give up. --Bob

I don't understand. Are you saying that the Do Not Call law has exemptions for politicians and charities because they don't care as much about completing those phone calls?

You have it backwards. I'm saying the Do Not Call law is permitted to apply to commercial speech because they do care enough about completing their calls that they will find the resources to get their messages out. --Bob

silvercamaro wrote:The short answer is that the laws governing the Do Not Call list were created by politicians, who did not want to be subject to the laws they created.

This was helpful. Thanks.

gsabc wrote:Unfortunately there are exemptions written into the law. Political campaigns and charities are two of them. I think you can request them to remove your phone number from their lists when they call, but that assumes that it's not one of the robo-calls.

That's not unfortunate. It's required by the courts.

First Amendment law has an unusual doctrine called "overbreadth." Usually, if you want to challenge a law, you have to demonstrate that it can't be lawfully applied to you as written. The First Amendment is different, though. You can challenge a law under the First Amendment for "facial overbreadth" even if there is no question that a narrower law that applies to you could be written.

So assume the law had been written without an exception for charities and political campaigns. Then, even though commercial speech can lawfully be regulated, a commercial telemarketer could march into court and argue that because the (hypothetical) law applies to political speech, it's facially overbroad and can't legally be applied to anyone. The courts would agree and strike the entire law down. --Bob

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The same thing that keeps the newspapers going, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's my understanding as well. Commercial speech can be subjected to much more regulation than can political speech, consistent with the First Amendment. --Bob

Does Freedom of Speech include the right to invade an individual's home, if that individual expresses a desire not to receive such calls?

In other words, politicians are free to speak. Voters are free not to listen to them.

Speaking from the other end of the line, I can tell you that it is a First Amendment issue. I will leave it to the lawyers to explain it.

Still speaking from the other end of the line, I can also tell you how to stop getting unwanted political calls:

1. Do not list your telephone number when you register to vote. You gotta have an address. A phone number, not.
2. If you listed your phone number when you registered, change your registration (after Nov. 4) so that there is no phone number on the voting rolls. These days, such lists are updated regularly. Your phone number will probably be gone by mid-term elections in two years.
3. Even if you didn't list your phone number when you registered, it can still be had by enterprising list updaters from the phone book and other public sources. If you don't want political phone calls, go to Plan B:

B1. Make the political caller give you her/his full name.
B2. Make a note of it.
B3. Find out what candidate/issue s/he is calling on behalf of.
B4. Make a note of it.
B5. Explain to the caller that you do not wish to receive any political calls and ask to be removed from their call list.
B6. Terminate the call.
B7. If you get another call from that same candidate/issue, get her/his full name and make a note of it.
B8. Ask for the name and number of that person's supervisor. S/he will usually not want to tell you this info, or will claim s/he doesn't have one. That is very likely true. See B5 and B6.
B9. If you got a name, call that person. If you didn't get a name, google up the campaign's contact info.
B10. Call the campaign. Ask to speak with the director of operations, campaign manager, whatever. Get someone who sounds like a supervisor. Tell that person you have received unwanted call(s) from ____________ (and __________) and ask to be taken off their call list.
B11. Repeat B10 until you are assured by every supervisor of every campaign that you are off their call lists.

I have successfully removed three people from local call lists. The alternative was to listen to them lecture me about their right to not be bothered by my political colleagues. I was happy to do this, especially since I think it cemented their votes in my candidate's favor. Be assured that you do not have to be a party chair to make this happen. Persistence will get you off the lists.

Good luck!

Bob78164 wrote:

gsabc wrote:Unfortunately there are exemptions written into the law. Political campaigns and charities are two of them. I think you can request them to remove your phone number from their lists when they call, but that assumes that it's not one of the robo-calls.

That's not unfortunate. It's required by the courts.

Just because something is required by the courts doesn't mean that it's not unfortunate.