The Southeast Texas Record, which touts itself as the region’s legal journal, is tone deaf when it comes to consumer law. A recent editorial, entitled “Suing the Collector is No Way to Repay a Debt,” suggests that consumers should expect and accept debt collector abuse. The editorial reads, in part, “You can tell them you just don’t have it and that incessant phone calls won’t change that unfortunate fact. You can threaten to sue for harassment or to declare bankruptcy. But still they’ll call. And why shouldn’t they? You owe them money and are obligated to repay it.” It then goes on to point a finger at Deborah Bright, who is suing an abusive debt collector in federal court, we assume for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The editorial concludes, “We can sympathize with debtors who fall behind through no fault of their own. But a debt’s a debt. We hope Bright’s fortunes improve soon, so she can repay hers.”

The tone of the editorial is shockingly insensitive, particularly for a legal journal. While people should certainly pay debts they incur, and while debt collectors certainly have a right to collect on debts, the remedies outlined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – namely, the ability for consumers to take abusive debt collectors to court – were included by Congress in order to hold debt collection agencies accountable. For the Southeast Texas Record to endorse breaking the law through abusive practices – and essentially telling consumers to “get over it” – is unconscionable. We can’t help but wonder if they also oppose avenues of redress for consumers who have purchased lemon cars (perhaps something along the lines of, “You were a sucker to buy the car, so live with it”).

Laws are on the books for a reason. Debt collectors abuse consumers because they believe they can get away with it. It appears that the Southeast Texas Record would give debt collectors free rein. We can’t help but wonder if there are any circumstances where they think debt collector behavior might cross the line. We wonder what the editors think of the following debt collector behavior, as described by the Washington Post’s Dina ElBoghdady:

In a complaint filed in a California federal district court a few weeks ago, the FTC alleged that Rumson, Bolling & Associates harassed a woman who was unable to fully pay for her daughter’s funeral. According to the agency, Rumson employees called the woman and told her that they would dig up her daughter’s body and hang it from a tree. They threatened to shoot and eat her dog. And they called her “white trash.”

Would Southeast Texas Record’s response still be, “And why shouldn’t they? You owe them money and are obligated to repay it.”