Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(2) Since some messages are permitted at all times, and other messages are not, and the difference is their content, this does not sound like a time/place/manner restrition to me.
|
You mean, individuals can choose to ban some messages but not others, depending on their content. And I do think that difference is important, if not constitutionally significant. The government has not banned telemarketing calls. It has allowed consumers to take action that will stop them, through a government program.
The only distinction is that the government has not allowed people to opt out of other telemarketing calls, or for that matter annoying calls from ex-girlfriends at 2 in the morning. So the regulation is underbroad. Must the gov't regulate completely or not at all? If so, doesn't that make every restriction on speech, however reasonable and otherwise constitutional, nonetheless a violation of the first amendment, because some crafty lawyer can come up with an equivalent harm from similar "speech", but sufficiently different to be outside the scope of the regulation?
Is this cross-burning/RAV v. St. Paul again? You can't ban cross burning because you didn't also ban scarecrow burning? Or did Virginia v. Black resolve the other way?
