What part of NO do you not understand?

Freedom of speech?  Give me a break!  Let's try a different model.  I pay for the privilege of having a phone in my home.  It is for my personal use.  It is not an open invitation to invade my privacy.  When my phone rings, I answer it at my pleasure.  It is my good will that allows you to communicate with me.  If I don't want to talk to you, you are trespassing.  It's that simple.

The fact that a federal judge would give the proposition that a telemarketer has the RIGHT to utilize services that I pay for against my wishes really says something about the sorry state of our judicial system.  Here's a judge that either doesn't understand the basic concepts of who's paying the bills, or, there's payola involved.  I'm sorry, but this is pretty basic.  I usually try to show a basic level of respect to all humans, but this comes perilously close to really stupid behavior.

Sounds to me that if I were to remove the phone from my home, the telemarketers would have the right to stand on my front porch and ring my doorbell incessantly.  Fortunately, all I have to do is put up a sign that says "No Solicitors" and call the cops if one ignores my request.  Will I lose my basic rights to defend the borders of my property?  Sounds like that's coming next.  Maybe I need a really big dog.

This issue is so simple it defies common sense to understand all the discussion.  I'm sorry, but it sounds like there are a few lame-brains in the judicial system that need to be recalled.