With the enforcement of the national do-not-call list only days away, the telemarketing industry won a stay of execution Tuesday. A federal judge issued an injunction against the list, stating the Federal Trade Commission lacked the authority to enforce it.
In only two days, both houses of Congress quickly and overwhelmingly voted to grant the FTC such authority. The next day, another judge, U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham, imposed another injunction against the list, citing potential First Amendment violations.
With this second injunction, the courts successfully placed the fate of the list out of the hands of legislators and public opinion. Its future will be decided by the courts.
As of the morning of Oct. 1, the would-be enforcement date of the list, its future is sketchy at best. President Bush has signed the bill from Congress and the Federal Communications Commission has stepped in to state its intentions of enforcing the list. Despite this, the courts are hesitant to follow suit.
The audacity of the courts to suggest that such a statute would infringe on First Amendment rights of free speech is absurd. By keeping this much-needed list from taking effect, it is the American public whose rights have been violated.
Sometimes, in effort to maintain the minority’s rights, we forget that it is still a system of majority rule. Over 50 million numbers are on the list.
Contemporary interpretations of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion recognize that a freedom of religion implicitly suggests a freedom from religion if one so chooses. The concept of separation of church and state derives from this interpretation.
In the context of the case at hand, a freedom of speech should also entitle one to a freedom from speech. That is, one has an inherent right to control the speech to which they are exposed.
This is not without limitations. It would be inconceivable that I could walk into any of the local churches on Sunday morning and then insist my freedom from religion be recognized. It is my choice to walk inside.
Likewise, I recognize that we are a capitalist society and are commercially-bound. Without commerce, we fail. Consequently, companies should be allowed to solicit business in any reasonable manner. Whenever I turn on my television or radio, when I log onto the Internet, when I pick up a magazine or even look at my grocery store receipts, I am assaulted with a barrage of advertisements and in most cases, rightfully so.
For many of these industries, the advertisement market represents a significant source of revenue and without it they would fail. In contrast, I foot the bill for my telephone service.
The only people fighting the legality of the registry are those who stand to reap financial gain if the injunction remains. In contrast, those in favor of the list have no monetary stakes in the issue. They are merely asking for the right to choose when and where they conduct their business.
Opponents of the list predict the demise of an industry and millions unemployed. But if the product or service you sell is something people do not want it or infringes on fundamental rights of citizens, then your future looks grim.
If my house sits on property that is zoned as residential, then by law it is not to be a place of business. Through which loophole do telemarketers slip? The constitutionality of convenience stores posting “No Soliciting” signs is not being brought into question. Nor is posting a “No Trespassing” sign on private property viewed as a violation of a person’s freedom of speech. How can a reasonable body believe that doing so on my telephone line is any different?
Joshua Welch is a graduate student in industrial engineering. He can be reached at [email protected].