Let's say my friendly telecom decided it needed to "protect" me from receiving "bad" political phone calls from commie outfits like the ACLU. I might say that this "protection" violates the First Amendment, but the friendly telecom would say if we're prohibited from blocking calls based on content, how can we protect you from telemarketers. The difference between the do not call list, which has worked reasonably well, and the anti-spam laws, which haven't, is that one is much easier to enforce. That has nothing whatever to do with letting a public utility decide that it's free to block content for whatever noble or base reason it might have. And, no, anti-spam laws weren't passed just because the spam is a pain in the ass for the telecom industry. Everyone hates spam. Yes, some laws are hard to enforce. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Some spammers are, in fact, serving time. Let me remind you that these friendly telecom companies are the very same people who have turned over private phone records to the government without warrants, in express violation of FISA, and who are now demanding -- and almost certain to receive -- retroactive immunity for their unlawful actions, even after a federal judge has made a finding that no reasonable phone company could have had a good faith belief that what they were doing was legal.