🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Jan 1998, Russell Leach {78830} wrote:

> 
> In article <rcook-3112971856320001@ppp06.bais.com>, rcook@bais.com (Rich Cook) writes:
> |>
> |>I just wanted to second this and even go one stop further.  I would not be
> |>in favor of legislation to ban spam on the net.  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....  ;-)
> 
> And what does the word "uninvited" mean in your language?

"uninvited," means "not invited."  :-|

> The right to free speech extends only to the limits of the speaker's forum.

This seems like a circular and peculiarly noninformative statement.  A 
forum is an area wherein a speaker may be heard, no?  

> Speech that invades my forum (in this case my email account) is not, and
> should not be, protected.

Why, then, we should be suing junk mailer, including the U.S. senate for 
sending us their insipid mass mailings.  Sound nonsensical?  It is, and 
I'll tell you why.  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.

> How hard is it to see the difference here?  Except for Spammers, who _pretend_
> that their crap is protected free speech, how many folks really can't make this
> distinction?



-Sincerely, Rich Cook 510-724-3564 http://www.bais.com/~rcook
*******************************************************************
"When I was a kid, I got no respect. The time I was kidnapped, they sent 
back a piece of my finger. My old man, he said he wanted more proof. " 
--Rodney Dangerfield
********************************************************************