We recently had a similar situation occur, except it was only a 4 year old letter. The letter was returned marked with a rubber stams stating \”found in mail receptacle thought to be empty\”. I told a friend how strange I though it was and he said the strange part is that the post office actually has a rubber stamp that states that.
Hey DLR… our office recently had a letter returned with the same stamp on it. It had also been mailed about 4 years ago. We thought it was a joke.. at least that is better than the stamp I use to get on my home personal mail that stated \”opened in error by the IRS\”. I lived in Andover MA and although the IRS had a completely different zip code my mail was routinely opened before I would get it….my social politics were not appreciated by the state.
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent \”Do not mail\” is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing – and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, “”In today\’s [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today\’s merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman\’s mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer\’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
Way too much time on your hands…but you have to appreciate a country that allows you the opportunity to speak your mind with that diatribe. Guess there is something to be said for freedom of speech. Just don\’t advertise it. Oh wait advertising is what allowed you to post your diatribe. Oh my what a conundrum.
Don\’t toss \’em out! Resend them in the next postage paid envelope you get & just keep the round robin going. Maybe someone at one of those companies will want what is advertised.
We recently had a similar situation occur, except it was only a 4 year old letter. The letter was returned marked with a rubber stams stating \”found in mail receptacle thought to be empty\”. I told a friend how strange I though it was and he said the strange part is that the post office actually has a rubber stamp that states that.
Hey DLR… our office recently had a letter returned with the same stamp on it. It had also been mailed about 4 years ago. We thought it was a joke.. at least that is better than the stamp I use to get on my home personal mail that stated \”opened in error by the IRS\”. I lived in Andover MA and although the IRS had a completely different zip code my mail was routinely opened before I would get it….my social politics were not appreciated by the state.
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent \”Do not mail\” is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing – and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, “”In today\’s [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today\’s merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman\’s mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer\’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
Hey – are you on the right post? Or furthermore on the right planet?
Way too much time on your hands…but you have to appreciate a country that allows you the opportunity to speak your mind with that diatribe. Guess there is something to be said for freedom of speech. Just don\’t advertise it. Oh wait advertising is what allowed you to post your diatribe. Oh my what a conundrum.
Wow, I am all for it. In the future I just won\’t have to throw it in the garbage without reading it like I do now.
Don\’t toss \’em out! Resend them in the next postage paid envelope you get & just keep the round robin going. Maybe someone at one of those companies will want what is advertised.