🚀 go-pugleaf

In can.infohighway, mercer@bnr.ca (Stephen Mercer) wrote:

<snippity>

=>  Actually, it'd be much easier to do, if the cost of sending were
=>on the sender, instead of the transport, and thus indirectly, the 
=>recipient. If spammers paid the cost of thier email, they'd be much
=>more careful what they spammed, and how. Also, when thier emails
=>are turned back by automated filters, they would suddenly find out
=>what is _really_ worth advertising via email, and what isn't. It
=>might even open doors for legitimate, and fair use of email as an
=>advertising medium.

<snippity>

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times no. I don't want *ANY* advertising
in my *E-MAIL*, legitimate(?) or otherwise unless I have specifically
requested it. It makes little difference to me if it is from Joe Schmo
in his basement trying to flog his latest scheme, or something from
Rogers Cantel trying to flog an on-line service.

We are inundated with advertising on our telephones, televisions,
printed media, mailboxes. It's managed to slither into damned near
every aspect of our lives...to the point where educational
institutions have come to rely on corporate goodies to survive.
Therein life the crux of the 'problem'. Advertising is a fact of life.
There is nothing wrong with it. It is not bad per se. BUT when
it involves overkill, intrusion, and exceeds the bounds of
freedom of speech it serves no use, purpose or value.

I don't have a problem with every business in the world setting
up a web site. I don't have a problem with any form of advertising
in usenet *PROVIDED* it stays in the proper and appropriate
newsgroup, or at the very least adheres to long standing posting
guidelines. But when it comes to e-mail...no way.

That is not hypocrisy. That is a belief in FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
freedom of speech is the right of people to express their opinions
*PUBLICLY* without *GOVERNMENTAL* interference, subject to
the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion.

It's why I find the bluring of jargon, slang, and terminology between
e-mail and usenet to be more than just malapropism, pedantic purism,
or hair splitting.

E-mail *IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM*, it is a private forum, where two
or more people communicate. By all means invoke the powers
of *GOVERNMENT* to ensure that everyones right's in regards to
e-mail and privacy issues remain sacrosant.

Usenet *IS A PUBLIC FORUM* but *GOVERNMENTAL* involvement
should extend no further than is absolutely necessary, while ensuring
that freedom of speech is protected.

The issue is that there is a very real fear that since no clear and
defined distinction has been drawn between e-mail and usenet,
and is further impaired by the use of with a duality of meaning in
terminology, then the GOVERNMENT AND IT'S BUREAUCRATS
will act without distinction and with a heavy hand.

Members of the Carleton freenet rally in support of an American
legislators intrution into an area of free speech, and attempt to
pre-empt and castigate the efforts of civil liberties organizations to
ensure that rights to freedom of speech remain.

Kind of makes me wonder where their heads are to some degree.
On the other hand over the years I've seen the havoc that well
intentioned but thoughtless zealots have reeked in areas of social
concern.