"As an American, I believe in unrestricted freedom of speech. I support your right to bother me during dinner."

Few people really believe in unrestricted freedom of speech. We like laws prohibiting sexual harassment, assault, false advertising, etc. We also like laws that allow us to keeps nude dancing establishments out of our neighborhoods, and laws that regulate sound trucks and other nuisances.

But here's the crux:

"The whole idea behind the "do not call" law is that freedom of speech doesn't cover commercial speech. The law doesn't stop charities or political organizations from calling me. Why should Arnold Schwarzenegger be allowed to call me looking for a handout while Bank of America can't pitch me a lower interest rate? It's so un-American."

This is the fundamental problem. The writer has conflated political discourse with commercialism. This is a worldview difference--for many Americans, freedom is no longer about the ability to engage in political discourse. After all, the First Amendment doesn't protect a lot of political discourse, because individuals can be fired for their speech. Public employees' speech is subject to the "matter of public concern test." Employees of private employers can be fired for their speech, even if it is on a matter of public concern. Students basically have no free speech rights. Sollisch probably doesn't realize it, but he is seeking a maximalist bundle of rights for advertisers--effectively, his position would put telemarketers' rights far above the rights of the individual.

But my goal is not to address the worldview difference, nothing can change that aside from deprogramming Sollisch from years of propagnda that have equated freedom from regulation with freedom. My goal is to prove that commercial speech actually has a censorial effect on political discourse and that it actually harms individuals' understanding of the market.

Let's make the First Amendment matter for people, not just for profit.

It is ridiculous that the telemarketing industry thinks the do-not-call list should be a First Amendment issue. The restriction involved is the voluntary request of the telephone subscriber to not be called, not a blanket prohibition on making certain kinds of speech. Perhaps the only question should be who bears the cost of maintaining the list, the subscriber or the telemarketer. Of course, I find it reasonable for the telemarketer to bear the cost since telemarketing has grown to the level of harassment, and it makes sense for the harasser to bear the cost that their harassment necessitates.