First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
print this   Print

Indiana can block automated political calls

By The Associated Press
10.26.06

INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge has ruled that Indiana can block a California-based group from making automated calls that attack Democratic congressional candidate Baron Hill, who is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel in the 9th District.

In September, Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter sued the Economic Freedom Fund in Brown County after receiving 12 consumer complaints about the calls, which are prohibited by state law unless previously agreed to by the recipient. The fierce 9th District race was expected to be one of the closest in the country as both parties fight for control of the U.S. House.

FreeEats.com, the Virginia company that made the calls on behalf of the Economic Freedom Fund, later filed a federal lawsuit against Indiana claiming that its ban on such calls is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and interstate commerce.

The Oct. 24 ruling by U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney denied FreeEats' motion, saying the automated-calls ban does not violate the First Amendment nor restrain interstate commerce.

Earlier this month, the company lost a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to a North Dakota law that bars telemarketers from making pre-recorded interstate calls to that state's residents.

McKinney found Indiana's statute leaves open "ample alternative forms" of political speech such as door-to-door campaigning, bulk mailings, leafleting, and use of posters and signs. He found the statute does not ban companies from calling Indiana residents, just the automated calls.

"The government interest served by the statute is the protection and preservation of residential privacy," McKinney's ruling states. "As the Supreme Court has recognized, this interest is 'of the highest order.'

"Contrary to FreeEats' suggestion, the harm is more than the simple ringing of the telephone," McKinney writes. "A call recipient cannot interrupt a prerecorded message and request not to be contacted, and if the individual does not answer the telephone or hangs up he or she runs the risk of additional calls in the future."

Congress has determined automated calls are more of a nuisance and a greater invasion of privacy than a live operator, McKinney found.

He also rejected FreeEats' claims that Indiana law is pre-empted by federal law and Federal Communications Commission regulations.

In a news release, Carter said "this ruling recognizes the individual privacy rights of citizens."

FreeEats claimed in its lawsuit that it would cost more than $2 million and take much longer for live operators to call Indiana residents. It claimed the higher costs constitute a restriction of commerce, an argument McKinney rejected.

Gabriel Joseph, president of FreeEats.com, said yesterday that the company was reviewing the decision with its attorneys to look at its options. He reiterated his claim that the battle was about free speech.

The Economic Freedom Fund had agreed to stop making the calls while litigation proceeded.

In August, Carter sent a letter to Indiana's Democratic and Republican parties informing them that a 1988 state law prohibited automated phone calls for political purposes. He promised to enforce the law, even though it had been widely ignored during past political campaigns.

So far this year, the attorney general's office has taken legal action or filed agreements with eight companies for making pre-recorded calls in violation of the state and federal statues.


Update
Federal appeals court tosses challenge to Ind. automated-call ban
Group had asked 7th Circuit to overturn ruling that law doesn't violate free speech, but three-judge panel rules case should be dismissed because it doesn't belong in federal court. 09.13.07

Previous
Ind. judge OKs order blocking automated political phone calls
Group agrees to stop making calls attacking congressional candidate while litigation proceeds; meanwhile, federal lawsuit challenges ban as free-speech violation. 09.27.06

Related

High court refuses to hear challenge to 'robo-call' law

Virginia political-polling firm had asked justices to review North Dakota law barring telemarketers from making prerecorded interstate calls to state residents. 10.10.06

Ore. legislators target automated political phone calls

One bill would outlaw almost all prerecorded messages of any kind; another would eliminate free-speech hurdle — by asking voters to change state constitution. 03.13.07

Ind. high court: State can sue over political 'robo-calls'
Justices say 'law applies to all autodialer calls, not just consumer transaction calls with commercial messages.' 12.24.08

Telemarketing

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.



Last system update: Monday, February 8, 2010 | 16:40:08
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
Columnists
Experts
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Singsā„¢
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links