🚀 go-pugleaf

Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:55:17 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:
> 
> > axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> 
> >
> > [...]
> >
> 
> > You are falling for an either/or fallacy, not to mention that the opposite
> > of spam is NOT censorship. Remember, it's YOUR mailbox, and determining
> > that you don't want this or that in it is not censorship.
> 
> It's my mailbox, and I don't like people, like you, telling me what I
> want to receive there. Period.
> 
> > >since you demand one and only one stand of others.
> 
> > No, I do not demand an anti-spam stand from others. I *do* demand an
> > unequivocal stand, whether it's for or against.
> 
> > In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
> > either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.
> 
> Well, in that case, here's my stand: I'm pro free speech.
> 
> Axel.

Great!  Here's your free speech!

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any
unwanted communication, whatever its merit. The ancient concept that 'a
man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has
lost none of its vitality. We therefore categorically reject the
argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise
to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition
operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no
one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and
subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be
captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at
the outer boundary of every person's domain."

Chief Justice Berger
U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728
May 4, 1970.

I like that part about, "...stops at the outer boundary of every
person's domain.".  Nice touch don't you think?

				Moi