I need clarification on a couple of points.
First is the scope of the issue before the United States Supreme Court. I understood from the news articles that the main issue is whether anonymous speech (such as approaching people on the streets or at their homes) can be hindered by draconian licensing rules such as Stratton, Ohio tried to impose on JW's. I don't know that the Supreme Court has the time or inclination to address other aspects of this case, such as how JW's can be reasonably restricted if the householder does not wish to ever be called on.
Secondly, as far as the idea of registering all the households that don't wish to be called on and then enforcing it through the police: I believe this idea would create an amount of administration that the city wouldn't want to go through. What happens when people move? How often do you "renew" these 'do not call' registrations, so as to keep them current? And how would you prevent householders from making false-alarm calls against the JW's? Or how could a his-word-against-my-word situation be prevented, where a householder says JW's DID call but the JW's (using Theocratic War Strategy) say they didn't? What town wants these types of additional court cases?
I think the change proposed in this thread may have too many problems to implement. People just need the backbone or resolve to keep saying no to JW's as they exercise the free-speech rights the WT Society has won for them, as they keep slaving to gain status within their congregation!
J.R.Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)