The potato gets hotter. Politicians will be at great pains to avoid restrictions on their fund-raising and 'get out the vote' calls. The first amendment first and foremost was intended to protect a person's right to speak freely or publish freely. The rights of individuals to choose not to receive or read such speech is really the issue here. The bottom line is determining whether the Constitution really provides a right of privacy for the individual. This is different than the protections granted by the Fourteenth Amendment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"In a passing remark, Judge Nottingham outlined what he thought regulators might remain free to do if his ruling stands.
'Were the do-not-call registry to apply without regard to the content of the speech, or to leave autonomy in the hands of the individual,' he wrote, 'it might be a different matter.'
Congress could, then, at substantial political cost and in some cases against its members own interests, create a registry that would allow the blocking of a broader range of calls from charities, political fund-raisers and the like. It could also probably allow consumers to choose which kinds of call they would block."
No comments:
Post a Comment