Interesting Do-Not-Call Side Question

Earlier today I was talking with a coworker and we were discussing the National Do Not Call Registry and the fact that it has been, for the time being at least, ruled an unconstitutional infringement on the free speech of the telemarketers.

For the record, I don't like telemarketers. I've said so in the past and I still don't like them. I believe the National Do Not Call Registry should be legal and should by ruthlessly enforced. But that's not the topic of this post.

The way I understand the ruling by Judge Nottingham, it is ok for a telemarketer to use my private phone line to attempt to sell me a product I don't want.

Now I can quantify the exact cost of each call that a telemarketer makes to me based on the amount of my basic service and the number of minutes in a billing period. The cost may be tiny, but there is in fact a real and quantifiable cost to me for that telemarketer to begin his pitch before I hang up on him. There is a cost if I simply pick up the receiver. And the judge's ruling makes this involuntary appropriation of my resources for the benefit of the telemarketer legal.

I don't like that. My phone line is not a public place. It should not be considered fair game for anyone who can get the number to it. Advertising should not cost the target of the advertising anything. But this still isn't my point.

Let's take this decision to the next level. What about those ubiquitous "No Solicitation" signs on most every business? Can they now be considered an infringement on the free speech of the door to door salesman?

Look at the similarities. The rent paid for the space is the equivalent of the phone bill. The facility may be private property, but it could be considered a public use facility. And the salesman, like the telemarketer on the phone, is simply trying to earn a living in a manner that the business owner finds objectionable.

Why should the courts discriminate against the door to door salesman in favor of the telemarketer? Isn't everyone entitled to the same right to free speech?

Heck, if I really wanted, I could probably even stretch this into a justification for a salesman to set himself up in his competitor's place of business on free speech grounds. It'd be a stretch, but the argument could be made - and some court would probably accept it.

The big problem with all these scenarios is that they involve a weakening of the rights of private property. Why should I have any fewer rights with my phone line than a business owner does with his storefront? Why can he decide that solicitation is an unfair use of his resources while I can't do the same with my resources?

Is this a significant weakening of the concept of private property? It's hard to make a case for the idea that this decision alone will lead to wholesale appropriation of property. But this decision, combined with a while host of other little, insignificant nibbles at the concept of private property will eventually build up into a real loss of significance of private property. How useful is owning a something, whether it be a phone number, a business or your home, if everyone else can use it as they see fit - without your approval or acceptance?

This little matter - and it really is insignificant in and of its own merit - has huge implications for the state of private property in our country. I hope that some judge, somewhere, will stand up for the private property concept on which our entire economy is based.

If not, we're really sailing off into uncharted waters, especially given the activism of the judiciary today.