DO NOT CALL
What part of NO do you not understand?
Freedom of speech? Give me a break! Let's try a
different model. I pay for the privilege of having a phone in my home.
It is for my personal use. It is not an open invitation to invade
my privacy. When my phone rings, I answer it at my pleasure. It
is my good will that allows you to communicate with me. If I don't
want to talk to you, you are trespassing. It's that simple.
The fact that a federal judge would give the proposition that a telemarketer
has the RIGHT to utilize services that I pay for against my wishes really
says something about the sorry state of our judicial system. Here's
a judge that either doesn't understand the basic concepts of who's paying
the bills, or, there's payola involved. I'm sorry, but this is pretty
basic. I usually try to show a basic level of respect to all humans,
but this comes perilously close to really stupid behavior.
Sounds to me that if I were to remove the phone from my home, the telemarketers
would have the right to stand on my front porch and ring my doorbell incessantly.
Fortunately, all I have to do is put up a sign that says "No Solicitors"
and call the cops if one ignores my request. Will I lose my basic rights
to defend the borders of my property? Sounds like that's coming next.
Maybe I need a really big dog.
This issue is so simple it defies common sense to understand all the discussion.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like there are a few lame-brains in the judicial
system that need to be recalled.