2nd Judge Blocks "Do Not Call" List -- Please Let Him Know He's Wrong

[MRPLUTO]

miko,

You are right: the first amendment doesn't make a distinction.  The distinction has been made or defined in many court cases since then.  I'm not a legal scholar, so I can't cite anything off the top of my head, and don't have the time to do a search at the moment, but this is something I've read about many times.

I can give you an example:

Those politicians' signs in the along roads around election time?  They are legal.

Try putting up a similar sign in the same place advertising your product or services and it will be taken down.  Illegal.

[I talked to a police officer about this once.]

However, many communities allow real estate signs to be put up since people need to be able to find homes for sale.  It ain't fair, but that's how the law has been interpreted for some time.

Gotta run.

MRPLUTO

[miko2d]

MRPLUTO,
 Your examples are correct but not relevant to this discussion. The Constitution only restricts the power of the Federal Government.
 A state or local municipality may impose restrictions that the Federal Government is not allowed to impose.

 miko

[Mighty1]

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech!

I have a unlisted phone number but somehow they still call.

It's an invasion of MY privacy everytime they call. Period!

[MRPLUTO]

miko--


State laws cannot violate the U.S. Constitution.  Never.  No state can pass a law restricting political speech because of the protection provided by the Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Even on the state level, those politicians' signs are protected by federal law (the Constitution), but the commercial signs are not.

The Constitution does restrict the power of the states also.  They cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution anymore than the feds can.

All laws--state & federal--must pass Constitutional scrutiny.

MRPLUTO