I don't know about many of you here, but your 'ideology' seems to be getting in the way of a 'higher principle' here, Freedom of Speech!
Quit trashing the courts, when a ruling is being based on protecting Freedom of Speech. Take time to really consider the implications of the issue and the arguements involved, and what is at stake here.
Sure, I hate telemarketers. But, I'm am not willing to sacrifice any undue encroachment on the 1st Amendment for the sake of NOT RECEIVING a telemarketer's call.
Dou you understand why free speech is even an issue here? The judge ruled that it would not violate free speech if all charities were included in the legislature as well. He thinks it's unfair to selectively ban free speech, but it's ok if everyone's free speech is banned. That's where we question this guy's judgement. Charities can or cannot be considered commerce depending on the situtation. In which it isn't considered commerce, it would not be constuitutional to regulate it.
I'm am not willing to sacrifice any undue encroachment on the 1st Amendment for the sake of NOT RECEIVING a telemarketer's call.
Would you be willing if it were libel, slander, obscenity, copyright and trademark laws, classified information, perjury, homosexual slurs, racial comments, or harrassing phone calls? All of these are currently existing exemptions to free speech.