🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <68s71s$5im$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Cathy Stevenson
<cats1921@NOSPAMbest.com> wrote:

> rcook@bais.com (Rich Cook) wrote (quite controversially):
> >(snip) 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....  ;-)
> 
> I am certainly an advocate of free speech.
> However, I do not think that the First Amendment states
> that I must pay cash to support someone else's desire
> to speak. Consumers pay to read their email. Let the
> junk emailers pay my ISP bill for the proportionate
> time I spend hitting the delete key - then OK, fine.
> 
> And, of course, commercial speech is subject to different
> balancing, in Constitutional terms, than is non-commercial
> speech.

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