🚀 go-pugleaf

Rich Cook wrote:
> 
> (Rich Cook said)
> > > > |>...We have to respect the
> > > > |>spammer's right to free speech, even if it's repugnant or
> uninvited.  The
> > > > |>delete key is really not *that* hard to press, after all....  ;-)

Oscar the Grouch:
Advertising is not protected as free speech nor should it be.

> Richard Johnson replied:
> > > > Speech that invades my forum (in this case my email account) is not, and
> > > > should not be, protected.
> 
> (Rich Cook:)
> > > ...When you get an email address, you are by implication
> > > assenting to receive all messages sent their, regardless of who sends
> > > them.  Your email account, like your postal address, is a publicly
> > > addressible but only privately accessible portal to the world.  If
> > > someone sends you a message to your mailbox, it is protected by their
> > > rights to free speech, whether you like it or not.  Please forgive my
> > > bluntness.

Oscar the Grouch:
This act of getting an email address does not give or imply consent. 
Nope, the right to speak freely concerns government involvement and not
the private citizen.  This means that the government may not suppress
your right to say what you feel, think or believe, as you are doing
here.  I, however, do not have to listen to your speech.  This means
that only by consent (a permit) are you allowed to hold public rallies
to which I am not required to attend.  You sending me mail implies that
I am required to accept the literature you are handing out.  This
implication of requirement is false.  Therefore your statement "If
someone sends you a message to your mailbox, it is protected by their
rights to free speech, whether you like it or not", is also false.

> >(Johnson:)
> > Your bluntness is worthless.
> 
> I mock your taunting verbal baubles!  Ha!  Ha!  :-)
> 
> > Your argument starts from a fallacious
> > premise.  The existence of a mailbox is most specifically not an open
> > invitation to receive mail on any and all subjects.
> > My mailbox is not a public forum.  It is private property.  Whether it be
> > rented or owned mailboxes, hosts, and network bandwidth, it is private.
> > I allow people who follow the commonly accepted rules of netiquette to
> > make use of it to contact me.  Conversely, I do not allow anyone to
> > violate netiquette by engaging in advertising via my property without
> > permission or sufficient compensation.
> > Only when the spammer sends the advertising WITH SUFFICIENT POSTAGE (say,
> > $5 US per message) can they have their advertising stored and displayed on
> > my property.  Until spammers pay their own way, their abuse of my
> > resources to store and display their advertising, wholly without
> > permission, is nothing more than theft.
> > They're certainly welcome to speak freely, but only on their own dime, not
> > on my property.  Of course, if spammers had to pay their own way, spam
> > simply wouldn't exist...

Oscar the Grouch:
I would ad only this....  Most consider SPAM, UCE, UBE, ETC... theft and
I agree.  The reasing for this would simply be the amount of time spent
on downloading, reading, responding, etc... takes time and energy.  Like
most others out there in the real world, I do charge for both my time
and my energy.  This reasoning does not exclude the resource issue, that
too contributes to the theft arguement.  Time and energy have value and
should not be excluded from a monetary issue.

> I think my reply to Cathy earlier is suitable (but please don't think I am
> defending spam as some nice thing):
> You are not paying to support their desire to speak.  The spammer pays for
> the priviledge to be connected to the internet, which allows them to send
> email wherever they like.  You pay to receive and send email.  You are not
> charged any extra because of the spam which you receive, normally,
> although I suppose in extreme cases this could happen.
> Please don't misunderstand me.  Spamming is a waste of Internet resources
> from my viewpoint, but then again, so are discussions about celebrity
> supermodels.  You pay for those silly supermodel discussions in the same
> way you pay for spam, that is in that your money helps support the overall
> Internet infrastructure.  This is as much of a financial burden you can
> claim is imposed on you, I believe, although I'm sure you'll be anxious to
> correct me.  :-)
> The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
> mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
> lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.  Spammers pay
> for an account and buy Spam Blaster or whatever.  They buy your address
> from sharks who swim Usenet.  They suck.  But their use of the Internet is
> in fact as legitimate from a legal standpoint as anyone's, I guess.
> The Internet poses such an interesting problem in this respect.  I agree
> that commercial speech may be more restricted than other speech,
> constitutionally.  I also am not suggesting that if a technical defense
> against spam is employed, that it is violating the spammer's Free Speech
> rights.  (For example, AOL is commendably holding the line against
> well-known spammer sites.  Hurrah for them! I note that both Cathy and I
> employ the old "dontspam" technique in our email addresses.)  However, to
> make spamming *illegal* would in my opinion be Unconstitutional because
> the State has no right to mess around in this issue.
> I am primarily concerned that the arguments against spam sometimes lead to
> discussions about how to limit network technology, and even may get
> Congress involved, which will surely cause us all regret.  Spam is an
> irritation, not an emergency as yet.
> 
> --
> 
> TO REPLY TO THIS POSTING, PLEASE DELETE THE "DONTSPAM" PART OF THE EMAIL ADDRESS.  I am very sorry for this, but it's self-defense, hope you understand.
> 
> Thank you
> -Rich Cook

Oscar the Grouch:
I am not going to do a point by point analysis of your claims as most of
your points are moot.  The sender of SPAM, UCE, UBE, ETC... does not pay
more than a small fee to abuse the property of another.  The cost
rtelated to keeping a server up and connected to a provider such as
UU.NET is not inexpensive.  A couple of T1's and mabey a T3 to maintain
a good data flow rate for say 6,000 customers is high.  Then somebody
signs up for a ISDN line and floods the internet with 20,000 (a low
estimate) unwanted, unsolicted, etc... mailings and/'or post.  Then the
host faces possible UDP and other sanctions by other providers for
failing to act in accordance with their TOS and/ or AUP.

This also happens when these advertisers highjack or steal the SMPT on a
server.  The reply information is almost always forged.  This is usually
done in an effort to deny responsibilty for the act of theft.

The premise that commercial speech and free speech are one and the same
is a false statement.  The founding fathers protected the right to speak
freely in an enviornment that did not allow you to speak openly.  This
concerned political issues and private issues.  This freedom came under
attack during the 1950s - 1980s and still is something we as a nation
and individuals must do everything to protect this freedom.  

However, I am unaware of any time in our nations history when the right
to speak out against a political party or concept was equated with the
right to sell a product and/or service.  The terms "commercial" "free",
refer two differring ideas making your premise false.

-- 
Mark
-----------
http://www.whew.com
http://www.whew.com/reviews/
--------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is not you practicing FREE SPEECH.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is an infringement into my solitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------