Note that a federal judge has just ruled that the "National Do Not Call Registry" - which blocks telemarketers from calling listed numbers, is a violation of free speech and is therefore unconstitutional.

First - we are discussing commerical speech here - which has less protection than most other forms of speech. So - isn’t this really a “time, place and manner” issue? For example - In my state it is illegal to send an unsolicited commercial fax. It, of course, is not illegal to send that same information through the mail. What’s the difference? In the first case the commercial sender is using my fax line, my fax paper, and my ink to send his commercial message to me. In the last case he is using his postage, his paper and his ink to send me the same message.

In the case of telemarketers, they take advantage of the telephone service you purchased – one you purchased for a different reason than receiving telemarketing calls --- and they occupy time you intended for purposes other than answering telemarketing calls ------ so, as John Mace (I think) said earlier in this thread – ‘why can’t these calls be blocked at the gate’ by simply indicating that this paid for telephone service isn’t available to telemarketers. This doesn’t block their commercial speech – it just makes them pay the costs --