[Graybeard58]

"held the list unconstitutional".

As much as I dislike telemarketers, the judge might be right. I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

[Numbers Guy]

I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

Commercial speech is less protected than political speech, that's been a standard interpretation of the First Amendment for ages. Of course that raises the issue of the exemptions for charities and long distance phone companies.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

It is real simple. These companies are not restricted until someone requests that they be restricted from their particular phone that they OWN. Big difference. In theory if the public demanded, a DNCall list could be extended to charities and other businesses.

[Cobra64]

"held the list unconstitutional".

If I sign up to NOT want to listen to someone, then I have that RIGHTt. It's MY phone, I PAY for the service, and the telemarketers are consuming MY time.

[jimkress]

The law does not prevent the telemarketers from speaking. However, There is no constitutional requirement that anyone has to listen. According to the 'logic' of this idiot judge, if I want to write a letter to the editor of the NY Times, they MUST print my letter since to not print it is a violation of my right to speak.

[Ready4Freddy]

Require politicians & charities to observe the requirements of the no-call list.

[bvw]

That's the golden straw you just drew.

[steve-b]

As much as I dislike telemarketers, the judge might be right. I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

This may all work out for the best. Given the way the public is screaming for the telemarketers' heads on spits, Congress may be forced to overcome the new ruling by passing a loophole-free version of the DNC law.

[FreeReign]

As much as I dislike telemarketers, the judge might be right. I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

50 million people say they don't want telemarketers calling on there private phones. I think they have the right to do so -- you don't? Do you think that the BSA must associate with homosexuals?

It's called "Freedom of Association".

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Does this mean I will violate the "free speech" rights of a magazine salesperson if I put up a sign that said "No magazine salespeople allowed", but did not place the same restrictions on Girl Scouts selling cookies?

Geez, can't wait to be called into court on that one!

Just damn...........

[Sandy]

I don't see how telemarketers can be singled out and let politicians and charities continue to call anyone they please with their solicitations.

Amen. The judge is probably right. As usual, freepers are freaking out without having read the decision.

[Post Toasties]

Solicitation is not freedom of speech - if it were, then panhandlers couldn't be restricted from begging anywhere they please.