No, but posting his TN on the internet with instructions to bombard him with calls is.
Isn’t that his office number which is already publicly available on the court’s web site?
If it is a problem, then I think one of the moderators by now would have already edited that post to delete the phone number.
** Your television is also in your house. Perhaps you should be able to dictate what is broadcast, since the imposition of modulated radio bands into your house violates your right to private property as well.
OK, how about if I find his number for myself?!
Also how come speaking politely to a judge is bombarding, but telemarketing is free speech?
But the TV companies don’t make a noise whenever they send me information.
My next door neighbour can’t yell at me - why can telemarketers disturb me constantly?
In any case, we’re not trying to control what telemarketers say - just protecting our right to privacy.
Pull out your 1920s style death ray and tell him, “you’re trespassing on private property. Get out!”
Agreed!
When a telemarketer calls, ask them what company they work for and when they tell you, say “Thank you. I’m adding your company to my boycott list.” If enough people do that, the executives in charge of telemarketing will see that their practice is harming the company’s sales.
Well, Dewey’s a lawyer so I’m pretty sure he’s well-aware of what the consequences are.
Is there (please let there be one!) a list of companies who refuse to ply their wares via telemarketing?
As others have noted, I posted the judge’s office number, which is already on the internet at the Colorado District Court’s home page. I did not publish private information.
And his office is the right place to call to complain. I doubt you’d be upset if someone posted a Senator’s office number with the suggestion that folks call and complain about some action Congress was considering. I fail to see why this is any different. People are allowed to complain to government officials about actions they disagree with. It’s a vital part of our system of government, and ought to be encouraged. A judge is a government official, just like any other – people have just as much of a right (and indeed, a responsibility) to direct their complaints to them as they do to members of the other two branches of government.
But you’re actually suggesting that people should call repeatedly and at awkward times.
You’re going beyond advocating feedback to suggesting that he should be made to suffer as you suffer.
I can turn off the TV, or change the channel. That is not an option with the telephone, which is pretty much a necessity to function in this modern world. Caller ID is, to put it mildly, an imperfect solution (my wife’s cell, for example, often comes up “unknown caller” for reasons I’ve never been able to fathom – am I supposed to ignore all those? What if it’s an emergency?). The comparison you’re drawing is silly.
Gee, calling people repeatedly and at awkward times. Like during mealtime. Hmm. Sounds a lot like what telemarketers do. Apparently that judge doesn’t seem to have a problem with what telemarketers do, so why should it bother him?
:rolleyes:
Illustrating the point in the fashion I’ve described is much more effective form of feedback than a simple statement of nonsupport. Y’know how a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, in this case a thousand rings is worth a million words.
Absolutely!!
Well, the judge will not be disturbed one bit by any by repeat phone calls at awkward times.
His receptionists, secretaries, and administrative staff, now, they’ll be the ones being disturbed.
-
I don’t know why you call them ‘repeat calls at awkward times’. This is ‘free speech’. And I have a judge’s decision to prove it.
Of course if it’s not ‘free speech’ (like if the judge gets overruled), then I won’t call. -
What do you mean ‘disturbed’? It’s ‘free speech’!
Anyway one asks politely to speak to the judge. If he’s not free, then one phones back. As often as necessary. (An auto-dialler would help here.)
If, for example, the judge’s phone lines get tied up (hopefully forever), then surely that is a small price to pay for ‘free speech’.
And the judge is welcome to put his number on a list stopping these ‘free speech’ calls. Oh - apparently he’s not. Well, that’s justice for you!
I forget which one, but some huge telemarketing firm recently announced that they would obey the do not call list regardless of it’s legal status at the moment.
Why do you assume that the judge doesn’t have a problem with what telemarketers do? (In fact, he probably does…like someone posted earlier, his name is on the do not call list.) It’s possible to both dislike telemarketers and even think the list is a good idea, and think that the list is unconsitutional.