We're in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the great depression and involved in multiple wars, and you're worried about getting junk mail? It's a good idea but I don't think it needs to be one of 10 ideas we present to the new president on Inauguration Day, much less until we solve the rest of our problems.

Great idea :)

How is this different from the current Do Not Mail list? I hardly ever receive junk mail because I have opted out of most things. I still like to receive the Macy's coupons though. Remember, it's only junk mail when you DON'T want the offer.

Agreed, it's only junk mail if you think it's junk mail. That's why the registry that ForestEthics is calling for would allow direct mailers with which you have an ongoing relationship to continue to send you mail (if you wanted them to).

As of now there is no Do Not Mail list. A quick google search shows that junk mailers are terrified of a national registry that would keep them from pouring senseless waste into our mailboxes. Right now there are no such restrictions-- or penalties-- holding them back. Or giving us choice. We can stop going to a restaurant if we don't like the food or service, but junk mail defies the laws of supply and demand, and keeps pouring in against our wills. 100 million trees a year.

There are some services that will help you reduce your junk mail now, and you can go to the trouble of trying to opt out of all of them, but a great many people say that they've continued to receive junk mail, and often it's from new junk mailers who had bought their name and address from other junk mailers.

As we really start to think about reducing our carbon footprint, we might as well move fully into the 21st century, and create the tools to deal with junk mail in a comprehensive way. And those that for whatever reason love receiving junk mail can simply not sign the registry.

donotmail.org

There already is an opt out registy for junkmail. I have actually registered my family on it. It has definitely slowed down however citibank still sends me stuff twice a week.

There already is an opt out registy for junkmail. I have actually registered my family on it. It has definitely slowed down however citibank still sends me stuff twice a week.

Yes!! So much paper is wasted this way -I get an ad every week, at least, from the same cable company, although I never have had cable and never intend to. Disgusting!

I like your idea... actually I liked this idea about two years ago and made my own notices which I mailed to the "offenders" but without much change.

I'd like to propose that the government would make a law that the issuers of junk mail include a postage pre-paid portion that can easily be torn off and re mailed which requests that the recipient be "unsubscribed" from their list for a period of 5 years.

I think this would put the onus on the would be seller to absorb the time, trouble, cost of soliciting individuals that may or may not welcome the solicitation.

Love the idea of a postage pre-paid portion that we could mail back requesting our name be removed from their list. Very creative!

Junk mail is one of the great scourges of our country, and I consider it a form of pollution. I'd bet that 95% of all the paper that I recycle is junk mail that I didn't want, don't need, and didn't ask for. I've heard that a large percentage of the paper used in this country is used to print junk mail. But making a do-not-mail list while nice, is only slightly less onerous that whatever the heck it is you have to do now to vainly try to stop the flow of unwanted paper into your home. It's time to simply get rid of this kind of pollution and senseless waste of forest products.

This ain't EVER going to happen people. All the USPS does is deliver junk mail. You don't think we're going to close the post office, do you?

This already exists!

https://www.dmachoice.org

<em>This ain't EVER going to happen people. All the USPS does is deliver junk mail. You don't think we're going to close the post office, do you?</em>

Creating a Do Not Mail Registry isn't about closing the post office--it's about stopping junk mail. I think we need to take a look at why one of our oldest institutions is now a junk mail delivery service and see if we come up with something that makes more sense, respects our privacy, and doesn't produce so much waste. Is that so hard?

I like the link posted above by Ken Thompson that is worth reading because it enlightened me to some facts about this I didn't know.

Perhaps a good solution would be to both register to reduce junk mail and still ask congress to enact a law that required all mail that is not a bill or a one time mailing to contain as I suggested in a prior post above a pre paid or debit cost postage for that  solicitor, that would preclude futher solicitation after we had mailed back our tear off just ONCE.

For people who disregard the mail back notices there could be fines :-) when enough people reported the abuse of natural resources of which my time is a valuable one as well.

Doesn't this make sense?

DMAchoice is run, of course, by the Direct Marketing Association, which has a vested interest in making sure that they have unfettered access to your mailbox, so that they can give you paper you don't want.

That the DMA has begun to promote DMAChoice is an indication that they recognize American's frustration with junk mail. But who will enforce it? Are there real penalties for noncompliance?  Will companies be prevented from selling your info to other junk mailers?

In short, will a group with a vested interest in continuing to send us junk mail satisfy the desires of Americans who find the entire practice outdated and wasteful?

All methods for reducing junk mail in the short term should be supported. But in the long-term, out of control waste in an era of scarce resources doesn't need a partial, fox-guarding-the-henhouse type solution.

And it should be noted that not every company that sends you junk mail is even a member of the DMA.

The Direct Marketing Association can delete your name from their lists, but that won't stop the junk mail that isn't personally addressed but simply stuffed into every single mailbox by the mail carrier. THAT's what we need an opt-out from.

Although I agree in principle, I will not vote for this proposal for several reasons.  First, there are so many other initiatives being proposed on this website that take much higher priority.  That is my main reason.

Also, there is already an opt out mechanism, it just isn't quite as simple as the do not call registry.  But it is there.

Another reason, if 30% of the world's mail is US junkmail, that would indicate an even higher percentage of all items handled by the US post office is junkmail.  If suddenly that were drastically reduced, think what would happen to postal rates.

Brian,
I'm confused by your logic.  You agree in principal with reducing junk mail.  Yes there are other important initiatives but we can focus on more than one issue at once, especially if it just involves voting to make progress in one area and then moving on to others.   I'm not convineced we have nailed down the most effective plan to elliminate junk mail but I think that anything that is a waste of time, resources is worth looking at.

And if the USPS did find it had less work and for some reason postal rates went up it would not be the end of the world. I personally wouldn't mind paying more for a postal system that could become even more effective without the wasted efforts and time that junk mail creates.

Perhaps they would not need as many employees?  Perhaps they would not need as many hours if they didn't have to deal with all this busy work and waste?  Perhaps the rates would remain the same or even go down? 

It's time to stream line... It's time for  WELL CHOOSEN broad spectrum committees to study every aspect of "eveything", come to some conclusions based on facts that are gathered, for us to make some decisions based on those conclusions and act.

We won't change things focusing on just one issue anymore than a symphony can exist with one instrument.

I agree with Will...DMAChoice is obviously a "fox-guarding-the-henhouse solution".  They sense that there is large support for this issue and so they had to react somehow, but with no real enforcement, it will never work.  We need a national registry.

Although junkmail is wasteful and should be addressed, I don't think this alone needs to be brought to President Obama on his 1st day. Anyway as more buyers and retailers move to the internet, I would guess the junk mail market is on the decline. Just guessing, looking at how things trend.The only way solicitors will react is if it hits them in their pocket book. I like the lady's idea about the pre-paid postage mail-back part. But it may be helpful to know that in alot of junk mail, like the credit card ones, there is a return address envelope enclosed. You can mail that back.

Above, Thomas says: "You can't stop that mail, those companies have a right to advertising and not allowing them to advertise would be like taking away your right to speak."

There already is a national Do Not Call Registry, which I don't think most Americans think of as a restriction on free speech.

The 1970 Supreme Court case Rowan vs. Postal Service ruled that “a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.” In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger said that a person’s desire for privacy within his or her own home is paramount:

The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property…[W]e see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that “a man’s home is his castle” into which “not even the king may enter” has lost none of its vitality.

You can go to www.myjunktree.com and for $20 a year they will take you off the lists.  This one is already being done, No brainer...

Is this idea what we really think is important to stop global warming and put it into 2nd place?  Wow.  We better start thinking up some fresher ideas to stop Global Warming.

Peace.

   It's a no brainer that to create massive amounts of paper waste directly effects global warming. It takes alot of tree cutting and chemical processing to produce junk mail. Then the mail carriers all over the country have to use more fuel to to haul it to each and everyone's mailbox, then more fuel is used to haul it our overfilled landfills. As if that's not bad enough the junk mail waste creates methane as is it decomposes. In the era of the internet don't you think this archaic way of advertising should just go away?

I've had a lot of luck with the dmachoice someone mentioned as well as catalog choice - http://www.catalogchoice.org/ .  It doesn't work with all forms of junk mail, but the amount I receive is *significantly* reduced.  Now I get maybe one piece of junk mail a week, as opposed to several each day.

Focusing on junk mail is fine, but not at the expense of other priorities – this is such a small, small part of the overall problem of global warming, it's ludicrous that this is currently in second place, voting-wise.
Let's think big picture, and do something that gets at the whole problem, not a tiny symptom.

This is a good idea on its own, but shouldn't be one of the top priorities for addressing climate change.  It only gets at a small part of the problem.

YOU CAN OPT OUT OF TONS OF JUNK MAIL RIGHT HERE MY 8YR OLD TOLD ME THE LINK ITS GOING AROUND THE ELEMENTRY SCHOOLS!!!!!
http://www.catalogchoice.org/

Junk mail still keeps the postal service and many businesses in the black.  I hate junk mail too, but I'd rather not lose those jobs. 

Is stopping junk mail really worthy of being one of ten ideas presented to Obama upon election?!

A day without junk mail would be like a day in Los Angeles without smog, a day in New York without car horns, a day in Chicago without political corruption: none of them life-changing, but wouldn't it be a relief? 

Steve Bozzone wrote: "Junk mail still keeps the postal service and many businesses in the black.  I hate junk mail too, but I'd rather not lose those jobs."

OK, here's my piece on why this is important:

Steve's post gets at the heart of why this should be one of the first things we should tackle: Passing a Do Not Mail will show that we are committed.

If we can't pass this, because we are so committed to preserving yesterday's tired status quo, and helping the once proud US Postal Service lurch on as a junk mail delivery service, that how can we possibly hope to tackle these other, more complex issues?

This is such common sense for most Americans (89% told a Zogby poll they support the creation of a registry), yet over 19 state bills have failed because entrenched interests

don't. want. to. change.

Junk mail's waste is obvious to every one. If we must reduce our carbon footprints, this is an obvious place to start. Yet as you can see in Steve's post, a lot of people are afraid enough of change that even this most obvious of ideas will be defeated by the status quo.

If we can't do this (and believe me, people are working hard to kill it) then it will say a lot about whether or not our country is truly committed to tackling the tougher issues which lie ahead.

So I say we do this, and set the tone.

Who's with me?

William,

Your post makes complete sense and I AM WITH YOU!

It's not a matter of deciding what is more important -  that is like deciding which instrument in the orchestra is most important.I agree that keeping the P.O. in the junk mail business is proposterous.  Lets get logical... Bringing these important and logical issues to the forefront, making logical decisons, evoking support , effecting CHANGE while considering other actions to take is a beginning that is overdue...but sweet.Thank you!

How about this solution? Put a price on sending you mail. If a direct mailer wants to send you mail, you will tolerate it if he includes a check for a dollar. Or two dollars. Or ten. If the mail comes through without a check and you complain, the mailer loses his bulk rate privilege. This would allow bulk mailers to target their mail much better. It would virtually insure that the envelope would be opened (a huge concern among bulk mailers) and it would compensate you for your time in reading or looking at the mail inside. Something similar could be worked out for email. We might want to establish a maximum amount--like $10. People who seriously don't want bulk mail could specify that amount and it would cut bulk mail down nearly to zero. But if a bulk mailer SERIOUSLY considers you important enough to pay you $10 to look at his material, you get a letter that was carefully designed just for you and people like you--probably offering something that you might actually be in the market for--and you get paid for your time.

Robert,

I think it's a good try, your idea, but I don't like it.  I think we have become too accustomed to being bombarded.  We need to be able to reclaim the sanctity of our own spaces with our homes, inboxes and telephone bells.  People do not have the RIGHT to approach me.  If they need to advertise, fine, but let them produce NEEDED, ESSENTIAL, USEFULL, NON POLLUTING products.  Let's stop cluttering up the world with all this CRAP.

People will awaken, albeit too late and many of them will have had their senses dulled so much from the overstimulation, and desensitization that they will bearly be able to feel the feelings associated with the recognition.

It's not your idea that repells me...it's the lack of recognition of what we are doing GLOBALLY... Everything is about the rights of the CORPORATIONS , the ADVERTISERS... Humanity is diluted.

Unfortunately, this seems to violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constiution.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; U.S. Const. Am. 1

On its face, such a proposal as this violates both freedom of speech and the press.

The point of free speech is, well, fee speech.  The downside of free speech, is that you sometimes get messages that you don't like, want or think you need.Sorry... Can't support this.

Hey Mark,

There already is a national Do Not Call Registry, which I don't think most Americans think of as a restriction on free speech. And I don't think that the First Amendment would cover, for example, someone wanting to enter your house to speak with you. Which may be a more apt comparison.

The 1970 Supreme Court case Rowan vs. Postal Service ruled that “a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.” In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger said that a person’s desire for privacy within his or her own home is paramount:

The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property…[W]e see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that “a man’s home is his castle” into which “not even the king may enter” has lost none of its vitality.

So we'd love to have your support!

I don’t think Rowan sweeps quite so broadly as you suggest.  Rowan was about a statute titled “Prohibition of pandering advertisements in the mails." It provides a procedure  whereby any householder may insulate himself from advertisements that offer for sale "matter which the addressee in his sole discretion believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative." 39 U. S. C. § 4009 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). (Subsection (g) provides that upon the addressee's request the order shall include the names of the addressee's minor children who reside with him and who have not attained their nineteenth birthday.) In general, First Amendment litigation has produced the rule that laws restricting speech be narrowly tailored, and do not inhibit political speech.  Commercial speech isn’t as broadly protected, but is still protected. Salacious speech is also protected, but more easily regulated, especially where minors are concerned.Sorry, I still think it’s unconstitutional, but I appreciate the dialog. I would be more inclined to support this if it could be more narrowly tailored, although I generally support robust protection for speech. I appreciate discussing ideas with you; if you would like to see one of my ideas, please take a look at my idea for approaching universal healthcare.http://www.change.org/ideas/view/extend_va_benefits_to_achieve_universal_coverage

Hi Doug

I'm not trying to sound snotty, but determining these legal questions is kind of tricky. The case you cite, Ritchie Hallanan, does not appear to be a "published decision" -- meaning that it has no precedential value.  It is an administrative opinion, meaning that it is not even written by an Article III court – i.e. it’s basically the executive branch saying that they think it is just fine. Nice, but it’s not binding on anyone but the parties, and it is subject to appeal to federal district court, an Article III court. 

I'm not questioning whether Rowan counts – it just doesn’t look to me like it says precisely what you want it to say. Now, also, no decision by a lower court would ever “uphold” a United States Supreme Court decision,  as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the land.  The issue is whether a statute that was written more broadly than the one in Rowan (restricting salacious speech under the circumstances of the statute) could be considered as writing approvingly of a statute that restricts general speech more broadly. And while it is anybody’s guess how the SCOTUS would actually rule on your law once it is enacted, based on the opinions that they have written in other First Amendment cases, I really don’t think the ability to preemptively turn off a broad segment of communication, which is not narrowly tailored to exclude political speech, would ever be upheld. 

Now one of the problems here, you yourself point out. Passing the language that you suggest, means that there has to be something commercial in it. This will create a game of cat-and-mouse of its own. A picture of a Chevy Truck... Not a solicitation.  The announcement of a new grand opening... Not a solicititation.I would encourage you to more narrowly tailor what could be restricted in order to pass constitutional muster, and to consider the game theory of how this will develop… Best wishes.

Mark

Freedom of speech means anyone can say what they believe; it doesn't mean I have to listen. If I choose not to 'listen' to junk mail, I have that right.

Mike_the_doctor

This already exists, though it could be streamlined. See http://www.obviously.com/junkmail/ What we really need are changes to the pricing for junk vs. non-junk mail.  But in any case, the pricing of our mail system is based on the mailing of junk, so what this really entails is rethinking the independence of the US postal service.  Finally, charities and political causes are not included on "do not call" type lists, because it is assumed that being totally cut out of the political process is not a benefit to the body politic.  Should there be some limits to calling and mailing for those groups as well, perhaps with a shorter expiration period (e.g. a single year or election cycle) or a limit to the number of pieces sent?  Perhaps.  

    Direct Marketing Association does this  already, their website this www.dmachoice.org 

I personally think that global warming is a hoax.  This is a good idea just because it would save a lot of paper and would save people a lot of annoyance.

This already exists...

The DMA opt-out approach is not the fox guarding the henhouse. The point is that it doesn't make much marketing sense to try to sell things to people who have taken the time to say they don't want to hear from you.
Further, to impose such a restriction on the mails as proposed runs afoul of the first amendment – it restricts speech, in a category of speech that doesn't receive lessened protection, and it's not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

Look, we have bigger problems to solve. Healthcare (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/extend_va_benefits_to_achieve_universal_coverage) Or even fixing up the patent system (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/reject_obvious_patents_in_software_and_technology) even low-hanging fruit like enhancing our competitiveness with year-round school for our lagging primary and secondary school system. (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/year-round_classes_at_public_schools). Please support ideas like those!

I'm following this and wondering if people would revisit my idea to allow these ADVERTISERS to HAVE their FREE SPEACH... let them mail me whatever they wish ONCE and upon that mailing there is a tear off ticket that I can remail indicating IF I WANT TO HEAR what they have to say. 

They would pay for the return postage prepaid for the Card which would either allow them to continue to "speak" to me or indicate they should remove my name from their list for a period of one year.  

Shouldn't the ONUS be on them?  Why should I have to navigate websites and spend my very precious time trying to stop junk mail from coming at me?

If someone comes up to you and the street and continues to talk to you when you have indicated you don't want to listen to them and they continue do they have a RIGHT to continue on indefinitely?   Along with rights of free speach there are rights of privacy and the persuit of happiness.   Mais non?

Mr./Ms. Mer, you are now entering the intriguing world of First Amendment jurisprudence!

You ask, "Should'nt the onus be on the speaker?" Generally, no. Burdening speech is what is actually forbiden. For example, in a fairly recent SCOTUS case, the court reaffirmed the longstanding law in this area:

When plaintiffs challenge a content-based speech restriction, the Government has the burden to prove that the proposed alternatives will not be as effective as the challenged statute.

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (U.S. 2004)

This shows that there is a high bar against a statute that is likely to burden speech.

Now, you do have the ability to walk away, as you say. And he can't trespass to speak to you. But you can't stop the speaker from speaking, generally.

I suspect that much of the root of these problems lies at the Post Office.  Postal rates for junk mail are obviously low enough for junk mailers to continue using this marketing channel even though response rates are typically a couple of percent at best.  Rather than set up another federal program (and the associated bureaucracy), perhaps a simpler solution would be to raise postal rates for junk mail to the point where this wasteful, resource intensive practice becomes uneconomical.  Marketers could still send their "message" to customers who request their material or who are regular customers (meaning that it remains economical for the merchants to send their material to particular customers).  This approach circumvents the freedom of speech issue raised by other respondents.

While on the subject of the post office I wonder how many residential mail customers sill need 6 day a week delivery service and what the potential cost and energy savings would be if we were to reduce the service level to say 2/3 or 1/2 of what it presently is?

Michael,
Thanks for your obviously informed thoughts, truly I apreciate your reply in an area I don't have technical knowledge of ( law).

I guess what I'm proposing is that this tear off return mail would allow for me to "walk away" would it not?  Why should we have more rights in person than we'd have in proxy?  I can't believe that a persons right to the persuit of happiness could be compromised because people have the right to thoughtlessly use valuable natural resources of which my time is one.

If the LAWS that stand don't allow for it would it not be logical to ammend them?  Isn't that what we are trying to do here, stream line and make sane our processes? 

I'm seriously trying to be involved in this.  Laws are made to serve us are they not?  This law that you site seems to serve big busniess.. ummm where have I heard that before...

Thanks very much for your response.

In Sweden there's a law that if you have a sticker on your postbox reading something like "no junk mail please" no junk mail is allowed. This goes only for non-addressed deliveries though, when your name is on the envelope there is of course no way for the postman to know if it is junk mail.

I've wish you could mark junk mail with "Return to Sender" and that the original sender would have to pay the return postage. It's wrong that I should have to pay increased costs for garbage pickup of junkmail that I did not solicit.