Bull. You have the freedom to speak but there is no freedom to be heard. And there is definitely nothing that says I have to listen to your spiels. As far property taking, no one is taking anyones property unless you are considering your telemarketing database as property. You are still free to call the other 60% that want telemarketing calls to provide some social interaction. Equal protection? Maybe you have a point but if the list is structured for basic telelmarketing, charities and political calls and then citizens are allowed to opt-out for each of those types of calls they want, then that goes out the window.
"I think it probably will hurt some companies, and particularly the smaller operations would have a harder time absorbing the economics of adjusting to the latest regulations," said Brian M. McCutcheon, founder of SoftReach Services of Gilroy, Calif., an independent consulting practice that has helped some companies satisfy the latest government regulations."
Stevens, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 98—963
JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [January 24, 2000]
"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"
Amendment V
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
In order for this regulation and/or federal law to be constitutional, there has to be a corresponding tax and funding mechanism to satisfy the requirements of Amendment V.
It is precisely why we have an massively intrusive, job destroying leviathan called a federal government that the president, members of congress, and the judiciary freely and expansively use Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3 as the constitutional basis to regulate commerce, but ignore the Bill of Rights, Amendment V, particularily, when enacting such regulations.