It seems a federal district judge doesn’t believe that a law that prohibits so-called ‘robo-calls is a violation of free speech. The law in question is in Montana, which has a no-robo-call law (say that five times fast) on the books.
The republicans in this election are not too keen about this law, so they went to court. The judge, Charles Lovell, decided the law does not impede free speech, even though it actually prevents…..speech. But ok. I guess I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the Rule of Law hypocrisy is thick in this ruling.
|Montana’s ban on robocalls upheld as constitutional by federal judge|
A federal district court judge has ruled that Montana’s ban on political robocalls is constitutional, although the lack of enforcement since the ban was approved in 1991 has meant Montanans still receive many of the calls each election cycle.
The ruling, issued Friday by U.S. District Court Senior Judge Charles Lovell in Helena, puts an end to a challenge filed against Montana’s law a year ago by Victory Processing LLC, a Michigan company that does political consulting and works on campaigns and ballot initiatives primarily through the use of automated telephone calls, or robocalls.
Victory Processing claimed the ban was depriving it of the right to free speech. However, Lovell found that the state law prohibiting robocalls is a “constitutionally permissible content-based regulation of speech.”
|Read More at Helenair.com|