In her Sept. 30 opinion column, “‘Do-not-call’ lists endanger jobs, economy,” Leslie Heuer asks the question, “Doesn’t a do-not-call list carry the slightest hint of discrimination?” My answer is no.

It is not discrimination for me to choose what avenues I will use to purchase items. Most people would not call the fact that I am not forced to stay on the same channel when the ads come on discrimination.

It is not discrimination if I post a sign on my door that prohibits soliciting. Door-to-door solicitation annoys me.

It would be discrimination if the government decided who the telemarketing companies could call, and who they couldn’t. However, it’s not the government that is deciding — it’s me. The government (the FTC in this case) is simply saying I have the right to “post a sign” on my telephone saying that I don’t want that type of call. They are simply saying the telemarketing companies have to respect the sign.

Heuer asserts that “telemarketers are only as annoying as you allow them to be.” That is exactly what the do-not-call list is all about. I don’t want telemarketers to be annoying to me at all, so I don’t allow them to call me.

As far as jobs are concerned, any time people’s rights are enhanced (or limited for that matter), there will be a shift in the job market. I refuse to fall for the guilt trip that telemarketers may lose their jobs because they can’t call me. To perhaps stretch the point a bit, I suppose there are many stores who will lose money because I don’t have time to go and visit them. I don’t have time to listen to telemarketers. If they lose money because of it, then maybe it’s a bad business model.

Welcome to capitalism.

Kristofor Westermeyer

Senior

Electrical Engineering