¶ … National Do-Not-Call Registry and the CAN SPAM Act are both attempts to protect individuals from corporate marketing strategies. The National Do-Not-Call-Registry attempts to limit the ability of corporations to place unsolicited commercial calls to consumers, by allowing consumers to register up to three numbers on a Do-Not-Call list. Charities and political organizations are exempt from the list. The CAN SPAM Act is aimed at preventing spam email. While these laws may seem like a relief to consumers overwhelmed by marketing attempts in what they consider their private spaces, corporations have alleged that these laws are unconstitutional. The constitutional right at the heart of the debate is the freedom of speech. The corporations allege that these laws abridge their freedom of speech. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is one that can be limited in the face of a substantial government interest. This is the case for certain categories of speech, which receive less protection than other categories. Commercial speech has not traditionally received the same level of protection as religious or political speech. In other words, the government can, and has, limited commercial speech when it can show a substantial interest in doing so.

The government maintains that is has a substantial government interest in allowing people to enjoy both peace and privacy in their homes (Reclaim Democracy, 2004). The problem with that argument is that, while the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to protect individual privacy rights, those protections have been from government invasions. A corporation's use of a telephone number is not a government invasion. There is no constitutional provision indicating that protecting privacy from personal invasions is a government interest, much less a substantial one. Furthermore, a corporation selling a customer's personal information without the customer's consent or knowledge is not considered an invasion of privacy. The issue becomes somewhat murkier when one considers telemarketing to cellular...

However, the problem, again, arises because the corporations are not the government. Does the fact that the FTC regulates communications somehow bring these issues under the heading of the government?
At this point in time, it appears that the Supreme Court will continue to side with consumers and protect the government's ability to limit telemarketing calls and to ban SPAM. The decisions that have come before the Court have sided with the consumer. However, a recent, non-related Supreme Court decision broadly construed corporate free speech rights in another area. That decision may be used as an argument against the current marketing restrictions that are in place. The government could attempt to reach the same result by using other methods, but the likelihood that those methods will be successful is slim, given the creative ways that corporations have been developing to defeat the existing Do-Not-Call list, such as using foreign phone services to block the originating phone number.

Question Two

The parties to the lawsuit will be Veronica, Fun Products, Inc., and the Milton Hotel Chain. At trial level, Veronica would be the plaintiff and Fun Products, Inc. And the Milton Hotel Chain would be the defendants. What they would be called at the appeal level depends on the trial court's decision and who appeals the decision. The party who appeals the decision is the appellant and the opposing party is the appellee. Therefore, if Veronica was successful at trial and one of the defendants appealed, then Fun Products, Inc. and/or the Milton Hotel would be appellants and Veronica would be the appellee. However, if the defendants were successful at the trial level and Veronica appealed, she would be the appellant and they would be the appellees.

At the heart of Veronica's lawsuit is the issue of…