The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation, or CALM Act, is now on the way to President Obama’s desk. The law addresses a long-time irritation to TV viewers, who have been complaining about television commercials booming out at ear-splitting volume as soon as a moderately-loud program takes a break. The advertising trick, which has been around for a while, has become even more blatant in recent years with availability of new sound technology. Some televisions have been equipped with devices that supposedly even out sound variations, but they do not completely solve the problem. The new legislation directs the Federal Communications Commission to require advertisers, within a year, to adopt industry technology aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.

This is a classic example of law doing what law is supposed to do: step in when individuals or organizations refuse to respect ethical values and cultural norms in the pursuit of their own self-interest, and set penalties to inspire them to engage in fair conduct, since “doing the right thing” isn’t motivation enough. Ramping up the sound of TV ads beyond the volume set for the regular programming is obviously unethical conduct. It intentionally makes the volume higher than the viewer finds comfortable. The rationales for the tactic, such as ensuring that viewers hear the ad when they have left the TV room for the kitchen during a break, are only persuasive from the advertiser’s viewpoint. If viewers want to see and hear the commercials, they stay in front of the TV. Allowing advertisers to chase them wherever they go is per se obnoxious. Some ads come in so loudly that it is almost painful: many times I have literally dived for the remote to get the volume of a commercial down before I started bleeding out of my ears.

If the law can be enforced—and there is some question about that—it is a good one. But critics have decided to trot out an impressive list of ideological objections against CALM and rationalizations for why it shouldn’t have been passed. This is fascinating and instructive, since the law seems to be a no-brainer.  Here are the ones I seen so far:

• “Congress has better things to do.” I heard an ad executive ridiculing CALM on this basis, as have many blogs. This is the equivalent of speeders chastising the police for ticketing them when there are murders and robberies to solve. CALM isn’t stopping Congress’s progress on dealing with the Bush tax cuts (which could and should have been dealt with moths ago), and relatively minor misconduct doesn’t deserve to get a pass just because there are larger priorities languishing.

• “There are far worse things that should be made illegal.” A related argument, but one inspired by my all-time least favorite rationalization, “It’s not the worst thing,” which is typically used by wrongdoers to make their rotten conduct look better by artificially comparing it to really terrible conduct.

• “That’s what the mute button is for.” Yes, and someone screaming and playing hip-hop on their car radio at top volume outside your house at midnight can be blocked out by some candlewax and really good earmuffs. Bumping the volume is annoying and disrespectful conduct, and if advertisers won’t behave politely when they are allowed into my living room via TV, then they need to be made to be behave. I shouldn’t have to dive for the remote, and I shouldn’t have to mute out advertisers who may be maintaining a respectful volume to avoid the shouted pitches of advertisers who won’t. The extra-loud commercials harm both consumers and their more ethical competitors. The mute button is no solution.

• “This isn’t a proper government function.” Ah, love you Libertarians. Actually, this is exactly when governments have to step in. As with junk faxes, telemarketers, ugly billboards, aggressive panhandlers, and deceptive advertising methods, some clearly offensive, obtrusive and rude conduct that can make life progressively less enjoyable for everyone cannot be curbed without legal prohibition.

• “What next? Laws to stop the loudmouth in the next table from ruining your meal at a restaurant?” Slippery slope arguments can be used to make any law seem ominous, but this one is a stretch. Unlike the loud TV commercial, the excessively loud diner can be handled, like the foul-mouthed sporting event spectator and the talking movie patron, by confronting him, embarrassing him,  and forcing the venue’s management to do its job. This works—try it. Complaints, letters, threats and entreaties, however, have had no effect on the loud commercial problem for decades, and won’t.

No, the theory behind CALM is ethically impeccable. Let’s just hope it works.