People don't like receiving threatening phone calls, so that has been made illegal. People don't like being defrauded over phone lines, so that has been made illegal. What's the difference here? Things are made illegal if (a) society decides the behavior in question is unnaceptable and (b) there is no constitutional right to engage in such behavior. There is no constitutional right to commit trespass, even if you commit trespass while exercising a constitutional right. You don't have the right to exercise your second amendment rights on my property.
Similarly, people don't like getting calls from their mothers-in-law (intential infliction of emotional distress) so they have those declared illegal.
No, they haven't. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common-law tort that is exceedingly rare. It covers incredibly offensive beahvior (like calling someone as a prank and telling them their wife has been killed). I only used it as an example of how certain uses of the phone are illegal and/or actionable and how crimes committed over the phone are really no different than crimes committed in the non-electronic world.
All you are doing is rationalizing your dislike of telemarketers into various forms of law breaking. But your case (and everybody else's) is so weak, you have to keep switching from one law to another.
No, I'm pointing out that banning telemarketers from calling people on the FDNC list can be justified in several different ways. I personally think this falls best under trespass laws.
No, all commercial calls have been made illegal so the DNC call list can be justified.
Things are made illegal if (a) society decides the behavior in question is unnaceptable and (b) there is no constitutional right to engage in such behavior.
That's just wrong. All things are legal unless the Feds have been specifically granted authority to regulate it. Consensual sexual intercourse is one simple example.
You don't have the right to exercise your second amendment rights on my property.
You don't have any Constitutional right to restrict my firearms practice because you don't like the sound of gunshots. If you pass a local ordinance fine, at least I have a chance to lobby against that.
I personally think this falls best under trespass laws.
Trespass is one of the weakest arguments I have heard on this thread. You signed up for a phone service that specifically allows what you are now calling "trespass". The correct analogy is leaving your gate open with a sign saying "come on in". I can't be charged with trespassing in that case.