# Damn you Judges, Damn the both of you to hell. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 27, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160 "2003-09-27T14:42:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/41 "2003-09-29T17:47:22Z")
Dewey, do you really have a problem with the technical aspects of the Colorado judge’s decision? I mean Really, you’re a lawyer for god’s sake. If it wasn’t the federal government legislating the list, there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, the feds have NO right to tell even the lowly telemarketer who they can and cannot talk to. It’s unconstitutional, and if an appeals judge is looking at it objectively(like any good judge should do), the decision will be upheld. Like Captain Amazing said-this jusdge appears to have been objective in his decision. He can personally hate telemarketers, scream at the top of his lungs, use his right to first amendment protection on them, put his name on the DNC list-all that and STILL look at it plainly and render the decision that its unconstitutional-Which it is. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/42 "2003-09-29T18:22:02Z")
Well, I think the Colorado decision was wrong. The judge gave commercial speech more first amendment decision than the courts have ruled it has, and also his categorizing charities as entities subject to commercial speech rules, which I personally agree with, goes against prior precedent. So the ruling will probably be overturned. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/43 "2003-09-29T18:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*The comparison you’re drawing is silly. \*\* And your comparison of political speech to telemarketing isn’t? There’s no law against calling people at awkward times. There’s no law against calling a person without being invited to. Phone numbers are necessarily public things. If you don’t want to be contacted by strangers, get rid of your phone. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/44 "2003-09-29T20:24:21Z")
My understanding with the no-call list has less to do with free (or restricted) speech than it does with the unequal application of free (or restricted) speech. In other words, it’d be ok to restrict people from calling as long as the rule was universally applied. But the fact that some people are allowed to call and others are not allowed to call is the real issue. It’s analagous to passing a law that says that aluminum siding salespeople can call you, but long distance phone companies cannot. Or, for a more ridiculous example, that Italian restaurants could call you, but Chinese restaurans could not. I think everyone would agree that these examples would be unconstitutional. My understanding is that the courts have said the same thing about the no-call list that excepts charities and politicians. Am I close in my understanding? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/45 "2003-09-29T21:26:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Phone numbers are necessarily public things. Oh? Mine isn’t. I have an unpublished telephone number and I’ve never turned it up on a web search. I don’t give it out to companies who sell information. I get one telemarketing call every two months, and I tell them to remove me from their calling list and their selling list. Telephone numbers are not necessarily public things, and there is no reason why one should have to get rid of one’s phone to avoid phone calls. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/46 "2003-09-29T22:12:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Algernon \* > \*\* > I think everyone would agree that these examples would be unconstitutional. My understanding is that the courts have said the same thing about the no-call list that excepts charities and politicians. \*\* That’s correct…at least, that’s what the judge in Denver said. The thing about this case, though, is that generally, the courts have ruled that “political speech”…speech that expresses a political point of view, has greater protection under the first amendment than “commercial speech”…speech used to sell products. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/47 "2003-09-29T22:25:56Z")
Thanks for the response **Captain Amazing**. So, if political speech has greater protection, then exempting politicians from the restrictions is OK? What about charities? Is their exemption the real problem? Hmmm. I wonder if charities could be considered “political”. Were there other exemptions to the no-call list? ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/48 "2003-09-29T22:59:56Z")
I would like to thank the judges for giving me the green light to **truely** express my First Admendment Right to Free Speech by telling any telemarketer from October 1st and thereafter to **“Eat Shit and Die”** … Join me in unison by expressing these four words to every telemarketer on every phone line on every day until the Sun goes supergiant on us… Feel free to add, **“1st Amendment Right ya:wally”** for ironic effect… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/49 "2003-09-29T23:05:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*Telephone numbers are not necessarily public things, and there is no reason why one should have to get rid of one’s phone to avoid phone calls. \*\* Anyone that happens to dial that number will reach you. There’s no way you can prevent people from using your number other than not allowing it to become common knowledge. You’re a lucky person – several people I know with unlisted numbers have had their numbers discovered through random dialing. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/50 "2003-09-30T00:20:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Algernon \* > \*\* What about charities? Is their exemption the real problem? > > Hmmm. I wonder if charities could be considered “political”. > \*\* Charities were the problem. I personally think that charities should be included under the commercial category (And, more importantly to the whole matter, the Denver judge does too). However, in general, courts have ruled that charities are different than commercial organizations in regard to speech. Charities tend to be considered more like political groups…you “vote with your pocketbook” so to speak…You’re saying “I think it’s important to feed poor people” or “I think it’s important to fight cancer”, which is different than a purchase, because expressing the sentiment “I think it’s important to get a new blender” generally isn’t seen as political. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160/51 "2003-09-30T02:11:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GaWd \* > **Dewey, do you really have a problem with the technical aspects of the Colorado judge’s decision? I mean Really, you’re a lawyer for god’s sake.** Why yes, yes I do. I think he overapplies _Discovery Network_, failing to recognize the lack of a less restrictive option in this case, and think he generally doesn’t pay enough homage to the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. FWIW, I’ve posted a fuller criticism in GD. \*\* > [@](#): > > If it wasn’t the federal government legislating the list, there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, the feds have NO right to tell even the lowly telemarketer who they can and cannot talk to. It’s unconstitutional, and if an appeals judge is looking at it objectively(like any good judge should do), the decision will be upheld.\*\* One wonders on what basis you say this is impermissible for the feds, but (I presume) OK for state and local government. There is nothing in either opinion that indicates that distinction is in any way relevant. Indeed, _Discovery Network_ dealt not with a federal law, but a local regulation in Cincinnati. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-you-judges-damn-the-both-of-you-to-hell/204160.md?page=2)