how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2009-03-30 14:20:11: Back in 2004, the state of Virginia convicted Jeremy Jaynes under a then tough new anti-spam law, sentencing him to nine years in prison for spamming. ..
| |
 biochemistry
join:2003-05-09
92361 | No He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. | |
| | underscore
join:2004-04-20
Fairfax, VA
| Re: No I think it's a terrible argument that spam equates to free speech. All that spam is generated by a computer in the interest of making money. The recipients of spam are private parties that obviously do NOT want it and take measures to filter it, and spammers attempt to circumvent those efforts. It's not freedom of speech, it's harassment. | |
| | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: No said by underscore  :I think it's a terrible argument that spam equates to free speech. But one supported by the courts, unfortunately. If you've ever been to Las Vegas, you've seen the pamphlet guys on the strip. There are literally hundreds of people handing out pamphlets to tourists, promoting 'in room entertainment' and other similar things. People take them to avoid being confrontational and them drop them on the sidewalk ten yards further down. Some days there are tens of thousands of pamphlets blowing around the sidewalk. The mayor put a stop to this a few years ago, but the ACLU argued that it was a violation of free speech and won the day in court, so now their marketing of unsavory services is viewed as protected speech.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash | |
| | | | 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No said by footballdude : ... There are literally hundreds of people handing out pamphlets to tourists ... You can simply walk by, and not take the thing. Spam is different, it's forced on you. No one forces you to take something offered.
Bob
--
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
| |
| | | | | 
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Re: No No one has a Constitutional right to consume MY computing and storage resources.
If anything it should be criminal as theft of service. | |
| | | | 
jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by Bit :No one has a Constitutional right to consume MY computing and storage resources. If anything it should be criminal as theft of service. ABSOLUTELY correct. We all PAY for our internet "feed" and some of us even have limits on how much data can be consumed in a month. This is very much a theft of the service I pay for, and a violation of my rights too.
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
| | | | | 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by jwersan :said by Bit :No one has a Constitutional right to consume MY computing and storage resources. If anything it should be criminal as theft of service. ABSOLUTELY correct. We all PAY for our internet "feed" and some of us even have limits on how much data can be consumed in a month. This is very much a theft of the service I pay for, and a violation of my rights too. LOL.
Do you complain when an banner ad shows up on a site? You're paying for that! Sorry, but this is nonsense. I'm against spammers, but these laws do NOTHING to stop them.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: No I CHOOSE to go to an ad supported site. I by definition DO NOT choose unsolicited commercial email.
When I go to an ad supported site, there is consideration. I get something in exchange for the advertising. With SPAM there is no such consideration. | |
| | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by Bit :I CHOOSE to go to an ad supported site. I by definition DO NOT choose unsolicited commercial email. When I go to an ad supported site, there is consideration. I get something in exchange for the advertising. With SPAM there is no such consideration. One problem, you knowingly have an e-mail account on a PUBLIC network... It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house. The only difference is that it is in cyberspace.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Re: No So what. I bought a house on a public street. Doesn't mean anyone can walk in whenever they feel like it | |
| | | | | | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
1 edit | "It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house."
I think it's a bit different. If you mailed an empty envelope to my house without a stamp and expected me to pay the postage due (which is what spam does), then yes, I agree with your analogy. But in most cases the post office would refuse to process your envelope and return it to you.
And as for the ad banners on a site, they don't search me out and upload their messages into my mailbox; I have to go to them. That's not what spammers are doing. They ARE searching me out and sending their stuff to me.
So I can understand that they have the right to create spam but I don't see that they have the right to force me to underwrite their chosen form of distribution, any more then I should have the right to use MY right to free speech by writing a nasty reply and sending thirty or forty million copies to their address or by hitting them with a DOS attack. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: No said by Desdinova :I think it's a bit different. If you mailed an empty envelope to my house A lot of people don't realize it, but you have the legal right to force the postal service to prevent unwanted mail. You can actually sue the offender in your local small claims court for violations after following due process.
See the following:
To stop unwanted junk mail, the post office provides Form 1500.[1] It is officially called an "Application for Prohibitory Order," the postal equivalent to a restraining order. Ignoring a Prohibitory Order is considered an unlawful act. Under the law[2] which enables Form 1500, the Postmaster is authorized to notify the Attorney General of violations of an Order. The AG is authorized to seek an order of compliance from a District Court. Continued violations may be punishable by the court as contempt of court. (At a minimum, you would have the right to sue in your jurisdiction's Small Claims court for every mailing in violation of a Prohibitory Order. You would most likely receiving a default judgment since the mailer is unlikely to travel to your jurisdiction to defend themself against an indefensible act. Perhaps selling judgments to a collection agency at 50-cents on the dollar.).
To better understand the law and problems you may encounter at the Post office, the law targeted smut mail. But, the definition of "objectionable, erotic, sexually explicit, etc." is highly subjective. In 1970 the mass-mailing industry challenged the law. The Supreme Court rejected the mass mailers' argument and ruled[3] that Congress intended to
"entrust[] unreviewable discretion to the addressee to determine whether or not the advertisement was 'erotically arousing or sexually provocative.'"[4] Therefore, even though Form 1500 emphasizes "erotically arousing or sexually provocative," don't feel deterred. The Supreme Court said that the statute gives you the right to stop even "dry goods catalogs" for any reason you choose.[5]
Simply complete the form, take it to the post office with the actual piece of junk mail, and insist that they accept your Application for a Prohibitory Order. If the postal employee working the counter objects to your definition of "erotically arousing or sexually provocative," show them the Supreme Court quotes provided in this article. Show them the actual wording of the law.[6] If that doesn't work, refer them to the wording of Form 1500[7]. And finally, Postal Bulletin 21977, which says:
"Postmasters MAY NOT REFUSE to accept a Form 1500 because the advertisement in question does not appear to be sexually oriented. Only the addressee may make that determination."[8] Escalate to supervisors (and the postmaster) if necessary. Don't be ashamed to use the law the way the Supreme Court interpreted Congress's intent to protect YOU. Don't feel sorry for troubling the Post Office. The Court even noted the Post Office's role as enabler in the junk-mail industry.[9]
[1] »www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf
[2] 39 USC Sect. 3008, (»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3008.shtml) previously codified as Sect. 4009.
[3] Rowan, DBA American Book Service, et al. V. United States Post
Office Department, et al. 397 U.S. 728. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/).
[4] Ibid., p. 739, footnote 6. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#F6)
See also:
"The section was intended to allow the addressee COMPLETE AND UNFETTERED DISCRETION in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender." P. 734, emphasis added. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#734).
[5]
"Both the absoluteness of the citizen's right under Sect. 4009 and its finality are essential; what may not be provocative to one person may well be to another. In operative effect THE POWER OF THE HOUSEHOLDER UNDER THE STATUTE IS UNLIMITED; HE MAY PROHIBIT THE MAILING OF A DRY GOODS CATALOG because he objects to the contents or indeed the text of the language touting the merchandise." Ibid., p. 737, emphasis added. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#737). See also:
"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." p. 738. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#738).
[6]
"Whoever for himself, or by his agents or assigns, mails or causes to be mailed any pandering advertisement which offers for sale matter WHICH THE ADDRESSEE IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES TO BE erotically arousing or sexually provocative shall be subject to an order of the Postal Service to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addresses thereof." Supra note 1, para. a, emphasis added.
[7]
"The attached mailpiece, from the mailer identified below, offers for sale matter THAT I BELIEVE TO BE erotically arousing or sexually provocative and therefore is a pandering advertisement" Supra note 1, p. 2, emphasis added.
[8]
"-- The prohibitory order. This order aids in protecting customers from receiving pandering advertisements through the mail. An addressee may obtain a prohibitory order against the mailer of an advertisement that THE ADDRESSEE DETERMINES, IN HIS OR HER SOLE DISCRETION, to be offering matter for sale that is erotically arousing or sexually provocative, as defined in title 39, United States Code, 3008. POSTMASTERS MAY NOT REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FORM 1500 because the advertisement in question does not appear to be sexually oriented. Only the addressee may make that determination. The order prohibits the mailer from sending any further mail to the applicant (and his or her eligible minor children included in the application), effective on the 30th calendar day after the mailer receives the order." PB 21977, July 30, 1998, p. 13, emphasis added. (»www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/1···1977.pdf).
[9]
"Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry, in itself, have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. ... whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And, all too often, it is matter he finds offensive." Supra note 3, p. 736. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#736). | |
| | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by Desdinova :"It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house." I think it's a bit different. If you mailed an empty envelope to my house without a stamp and expected me to pay the postage due (which is what spam does), then yes, I agree with your analogy. But in most cases the post office would refuse to process your envelope and return it to you. And as for the ad banners on a site, they don't search me out and upload their messages into my mailbox; I have to go to them. That's not what spammers are doing. They ARE searching me out and sending their stuff to me. So I can understand that they have the right to create spam but I don't see that they have the right to force me to underwrite their chosen form of distribution, any more then I should have the right to use MY right to free speech by writing a nasty reply and sending thirty or forty million copies to their address or by hitting them with a DOS attack. And you DO have the right to send them back "hate mail." A spammer sending mail to your house with postage (as they always do with unsolicited mail), is similar to e-mail spam.... Both consume YOUR time and SPACE in your mailbox (physical or digital). This type of law is very complex and still developing.. It isn't as black and white as many here would like it to be. As IT professionals, it may seem clear. But you also have to consider constitutional rights.
For the most part, cyberspace should be seen as the same thing as the physical world.. With a few exceptions.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: No said by Tzale :And you DO have the right to send them back "hate mail." How does this correspond to spam email with forged headers and no valid reply-to address?
I'm curious how your Libertarian nonsense justifies government enforcing a valid reply-to (or, protects the sender from that "coercion").
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
2 edits | Re: No said by amigo_boy :said by Tzale :And you DO have the right to send them back "hate mail." How does this correspond to spam email with forged headers and no valid reply-to address? I'm curious how your Libertarian nonsense justifies government enforcing a valid reply-to (or, protects the sender from that "coercion"). Mark How do you reply to unsolicited mail (postal) with a false return address? You're really going overboard here, and I'm not interested in playing into your BS. Everything that needed to be said has been said. And I agree with the Virginia Court, as they interpreted existing law correctly IMHO...
I'm not interested in making everything a debate because I'm a libertarian.. I'm just pointing out to you what IS and what is NOT possible legally.. That is all. This is the exact reason why we have lawyers. Someone needs to have the backbone to understand that the law can't be bent for special occasions.. And a lot of times it is NOT in your favor!
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: No said by Tzale :How do you reply to unsolicited mail (postal) with a false return address? You're really going overboard here, Please investigate how the USPS deals with fraudulent return addresses.
You're trying to distill this down to Libertarian simplicities. The problem is, they are simplicities. Unrealistic.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by amigo_boy :said by Tzale :How do you reply to unsolicited mail (postal) with a false return address? You're really going overboard here, Please investigate how the USPS deals with fraudulent return addresses. You're trying to distill this down to Libertarian simplicities. The problem is, they are simplicities. Unrealistic. Mark I am fully aware of how they deal with fraudulent return addresses.... It still is POSSIBLE.
This really has nothing to with MY beliefs... It has to do with OUR Constitution and the law.... Obviously, the court agrees with me. My philosophy is to be objective and rational. Not a blind libertarian. The law should be enforced as it exists.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: No said by Tzale :I am fully aware of how they deal with fraudulent return addresses.... It still is POSSIBLE. It's possible to murder people even though we have laws against murder. Are you advocating dissolution of murder laws because they aren't perfect?
said by Tzale :This really has nothing to with MY beliefs... It has to do with OUR Constitution and the law.... [Chuckle]. You're presenting your Libertarian views of the Constitution as the only legitimate view.
"This isn't about my warped interpretation of the Constitution, it's about our constitution that I'm arguing a nonsensical interpretation of."
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Re: No said by amigo_boy :said by Tzale :I am fully aware of how they deal with fraudulent return addresses.... It still is POSSIBLE. It's possible to murder people even though we have laws against murder. Are you advocating dissolution of murder laws because they aren't perfect? said by Tzale :This really has nothing to with MY beliefs... It has to do with OUR Constitution and the law.... [Chuckle]. You're presenting your Libertarian views of the Constitution as the only legitimate view. "This isn't about my warped interpretation of the Constitution, it's about our constitution that I'm arguing a nonsensical interpretation of." Mark E-mail was not designed to be abused, so what is your point?
You're not making any sense. Seriously, why do people use the "so then you must be advocating blah blah blah" line over and over? It gets annoying.
The problem in this country is people like yourself who have no clue whatsoever what the Constitution stands for. No wonder Obama and that hack Pelosi are in power. The Constitution is not open to much interpretation. For the most part, my Constitutional views fall inline with educated scholars of the Constitution who don't have a hand in the basket.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Re: No The Bill of Rights was about providing individual liberty. A person has a right to protect their property from thevies.
My personal email box is not a public resource to be consumed by anyone who feels like it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
4 edits | Re: No said by Bit :The Bill of Rights was about providing individual liberty. A person has a right to protect their property from thevies. My personal email box is not a public resource to be consumed by anyone who feels like it. One right does not overpower another right. Now, before you argue that YOUR right to a "clean" inbox is being violated by his so called "freedom of speech," let me remind you that you have NO right to a "clean" inbox on an OPEN network. Of course, morally you would have a right.. (which I would agree with)... Since your e-mail inbox is on a public network, your "resources" are not being "stolen," just used.... :-/ Again, before you get angry, this is my take on CURRENT law as it applies to the situation.
You have your own view. I have my own.. I happen to believe you are wrong.. You have an e-mail box which is OPEN to the public to send information to.. If you don't like receiving e-mail from strangers, then you should setup an account that bounces any incoming e-mail from unknown senders. Admittedly, the law is not as black and white as it should be when it comes to new forms of technology....
If the issue at hand was you sitting in your backyard, and people were yelling at you (nasty things), then I would side with you and against the individual(s) freedom of speech...
I agree, spammers are a major problem. I just disagree with how best to get rid of the problem.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: No An open network is irrelevant. His rights to free speech ends when his actions infringe on me.
He can go practice his "speech" elsewhere.
I absolutely has a right to not have my services stolen. My garden hose isn't locked up, so by your logic anyone should be able to take the end and water their lawn. I have electrical outlets outside my house too that are "open". Should anyone be able to plug in and steal electricity from me?
There is no 100% free speech. We have "Do not call", decency standards, disturbing the peace laws...there are plenty of president proclaiming that free speech doesn't trump all others.
My email box is not a public resource for others to consume at will. It's for MY use.
If spammers want to send advertising, let them buy commercial time on television or radio or stand on a public street corner. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Re: No said by Bit :An open network is irrelevant. His rights to free speech ends when his actions infringe on me. He can go practice his "speech" elsewhere. I absolutely has a right to not have my services stolen. My garden hose isn't locked up, so by your logic anyone should be able to take the end and water their lawn. I have electrical outlets outside my house too that are "open". Should anyone be able to plug in and steal electricity from me? There is no 100% free speech. We have "Do not call", decency standards, disturbing the peace laws...there are plenty of president proclaiming that free speech doesn't trump all others. My email box is not a public resource for others to consume at will. It's for MY use. If spammers want to send advertising, let them buy commercial time on television or radio or stand on a public street corner. How are your resources stolen? You put your resources on a public network, thus you should expect to receive e-mails!
We're reaching a point of diffraction in this thread where everyone is throwing around bullshit just because they disagree with my controversial, but legally strict stance on the issue.
If your e-mail box is ONLY for your use, how do you plan on stopping me from sending an e-mail to you right now (if I knew your address), telling you that the sky is blue? Would I be violating your rights? I think not. If you are on a public network, you better expect to have your "resources" consumed.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: No My ISP provides me with a monthly cap. Every KB I consume with SPAM is a KB I'm paying for. My ISP charges me monthly fees based on how much it costs them in part to run their email servers. Processing spam consumes their resources when in turn runs my rates up.
And WRONG. My ISP is a PRIVATE company. My email box is NOT a public resource to be used.
So because I have a garden hose in my front yard I should expect to have water stolen? If I leave a bike in my yard I should expect to have it "borrowed"?
Insane. What happened to respecting people's individual property rights?
Spammers are free to speak all they want so long as they don't use my property to do so. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by Bit :My ISP provides me with a monthly cap. Every KB I consume with SPAM is a KB I'm paying for. My ISP charges me monthly fees based on how much it costs them in part to run their email servers. Processing spam consumes their resources when in turn runs my rates up. And WRONG. My ISP is a PRIVATE company. My email box is NOT a public resource to be used. So because I have a garden hose in my front yard I should expect to have water stolen? If I leave a bike in my yard I should expect to have it "borrowed"? Insane. What happened to respecting people's individual property rights? Spammers are free to speak all they want so long as they don't use my property to do so. Your waterhose is on private property... Your bike is on private property. If someone steals it, they are guilty of theft.
You PURCHASED a PUBLIC resource.... Sorry, but E-MAIL is a PUBLIC resource... You entered into an agreement with your ISP for x bandwidth for x money.... If you don't want to take the risk of having someone "abuse" your resources, then don't sign up for the service! If you're going to be this anal about your inbox not being a "public resource" then I highly recommend you setup your own private e-mail system.
And I'm going to reaffirm for the record that I don't support spammers.
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Re: No So I get it.
If I don't lock up my car well enough then it's my fault if it gets stolen. If I don't want my water stolen I should take in my hose.
Nice.
You are morally bankrupt. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
1 edit | If they take my bike, they are guilty of theft no matter where I left it.
You are compelled by law not to steal from others, no matter how easy the theft act may be. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| said by Tzale :[You PURCHASED a PUBLIC resource.... Sorry, but E-MAIL is a PUBLIC resource... Actually no Tzale. Email isn't a public resource. The servers providing mail hosting are owned by private parties with the exception of
Bandwidth is also not a "public" resource. Even when it might be considered a utility, ISPs are still the owners of the network you're connecting to. AT&T owns the network my DSL is on, not "the public."
The "public" internet is a communal resource enabled by private networks who choose to interconnect with one another, sharing a common name service (root DNS servers). However, web servers on the network, mail servers etc. not owned by the "public" or any "public" entity like a government.
Additionally the local storage which a company (or ISP) is using to host it's mail services is absolutely NOT a public resource.
Now I agree that these spam laws suck and don't work. You seem to agree there, and that argument is fine. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC | What the Constitution says and what you believe are two different realities. Last I checked there was a caveat called Case Law. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 16 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
See 16 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Tzale :And you DO have the right to send them back ... With snail mail I have the right to not have it delivered. I have the right to tell the post office NOT to! So, by your reasoning, I should be able to tell my ISP NOT to deliver any spam right?
Bob
--
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
jwersan
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, and Max.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
Port Jefferson Station, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| said by Tzale :One problem, you knowingly have an e-mail account on a PUBLIC network... It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house. The only difference is that it is in cyberspace. -Tzale No...
My e-mail address is a PRIVATE address, one that I do not choose to advertise, my home address is another thing, in general it is public, in that anyone on PUBLIC property can discern my home address, but NOT my name, unless they check PUBLIC records and I have allowed my name to be attached to those PUBLIC records.
I am starting to think you just don't understand the difference. 
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
| | | | | | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Tzale : One problem, you knowingly have an e-mail account on a PUBLIC network... It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house. The only difference is that it is in cyberspace. Taurus, is that you? | |
| | | | | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Tzale : It is the same thing as me mailing an empty envelope to your house. The only difference is that it is in cyberspace. Wrong! YOU pay for the envelop you send me. If I had to pay for your sending it, you could conceivably bankrupt me by sending me millions of envelopes. Big difference here!
Now, if spammers had to pay for the transmission, the problem would disappear overnight.
I would be willing to pay some small fee for each email I sent. Let's say $.001 each. This would not affect legitimate use of email, but would bankrupt spammers overnight.
Put a price on spamming, and it is no more!
Bob
--
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by Tzale :I'm against spammers, but these laws do NOTHING to stop them. -Tzale One obvious law they break almost every time they email is that of false advertising.
Just follow the money, charge the company they're advertising for, and surprise, the companies will find it's no longer profitable to spam. | |
| | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by james :said by Tzale :I'm against spammers, but these laws do NOTHING to stop them. -Tzale One obvious law they break almost every time they email is that of false advertising. Just follow the money, charge the company they're advertising for, and surprise, the companies will find it's no longer profitable to spam. False advertising is serious. Get them that way.
You can't "charge" the company they're advertising for. It is unconstitutional and would not stand in the court of law. There is really no way to prove that an American company ever ASKED a foreign spammer to advertise for them. If you can prove it (even if it seems obvious), then you can go after them. Unfortunately, that is very tough. Big corporations have good lawyers.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: No said by Tzale :If you can prove it (even if it seems obvious), then you can go after them. Yeah... that's sorta how courts are supposed to work.
The main thing is to follow the money to whoever is deriving a profit from the scams that are in the spam messages. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by james :said by Tzale :If you can prove it (even if it seems obvious), then you can go after them. Yeah... that's sorta how courts are supposed to work. The main thing is to follow the money to whoever is deriving a profit from the scams that are in the spam messages. You said "SCAM." If it is a SCAM, then it is illegal... Otherwise, it is just an unsolicited advertisement.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | said by Bit :No one has a Constitutional right to consume MY computing and storage resources. If anything it should be criminal as theft of service. You've got to be joking me.
If you don't want your resources "consumed," then don't connect it to an external network with no security for those resources.
IMHO, e-mail is the same thing as regular mail and even distributing literature on the street or vocally telling people your idea(s)... It is impossible to 'ban' speech.... A better solution would be to stop buying products from spammers. Most of them use compromised systems (illegal) or are overseas.
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
2 edits | Re: No If you are talking to me on the street you aren't using my resources. If you demand to come into my house, you're using my resources. | |
| | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Re: No said by Bit :If you are talking to me on the street you aren't using my resources. If you demand to come into my house, you're using my resources. It's the same thing. You willingly went onto the internet.... When you go on the internet, much like going out onto the street, you open yourself up to receiving INFORMATION that you do not want to receive.. SPAM is much like all the advertisements you see on a city street. It's going to be next to impossible to stop it.
It is inherent to the internet that your computing resources WILL be consumed without your express permission when you connect to an open network.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: No I open myself up to receiving information only because a judge has his/her head in their ass and doesn't see my property and resources as my property and resources.
In a just world, using another person's private property and resources without their express authroization to advertise would be a crime. | |
| | | | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by Bit :I open myself up to receiving information only because a judge has his/her head in their ass and doesn't see my property and resources as my property and resources. In a just world, using another person's private property and resources without their express authroization to advertise would be a crime. You're in California, not Virginia.
The internet, by its design, is a shared resource. If you don't like it, you can disconnect.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
4 edits | Re: No The "Internet" while a shared resource is not open for unlimited public consumption and it's not a "public" resource. Vast portions of the Internet are privately owned property (whether by Level3 types or ISPs) including my email box. They're private homes interconnected by common streets. I guess if I don't like any of my Constitutional Rights and property rights taken away I should simply move to a different country.
That isn't a solution. This is a property rights issue and my property rights are violated when a spammer trespasses and steals my money in the act of sending me commercial advertising.
My email box is a finite PRIVATE resource that I PAY for and depending on how one accesses their email they may be charged by the KB even when they're trying to delete the unsolicited email.
Spammers trespassing and stealing my resources is no different than them coopting a corner of my garage to put up a sign. Yeah, I can take down the sign and put it in the trash can too. Just because spam is easy to delete doesn't give a spammer the right to steal money from me or consume my finite resources.
Spamming whether via email, phone or fax is theft and should be treated like the crime it is. | |
| | | | | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Tzale :I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. I don't. While you may have the right to say it, you do not have the right to force me to listen to it. | |
| | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by TheWickerMan :said by Tzale :I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. I don't. While you may have the right to say it, you do not have the right to force me to listen to it. Who said you have to listen to it? The problem is that too many people think they can legislate everything they don't like. Sorry, but legislation is not going to do anything to fix this problem.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No said by Tzale : ... Sorry, but legislation is not going to do anything to fix this problem. I agree. Especially unenforceable legislation. Why not place a price on email and let the market decide? A mere $.001 tax per email would stop spam in its tracks. The revenue could be used for community access. There is a government tax on sending paper mail, why should, (as you have said repeatedly) there be a difference between the real world and the cyber world in this regard?
Bob
--
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
| |
| | | Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| said by Tzale :I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. What if I dump 10,000 paper sales flyers in your front yard. Would you protect this under freedom of speech? | |
| | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by Automate :said by Tzale :I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. What if I dump 10,000 paper sales flyers in your front yard. Would you protect this under freedom of speech? Complete misunderstanding of freedom of speech. You can't "dump" paper sales flyers on ANYONE'S lawn.. It is littering/trespassing. Now, you can stand in front of my house (as long as you don't violate any ordinances), and hold signs protesting something....
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| Re: No said by Tzale :You can't "dump" paper sales flyers on ANYONE'S lawn.. It is littering My point exactly! If you "litter" my inbox with spam, I have to spend time and effort cleaning it up. | |
| | | |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by Automate :said by Tzale :I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. What if I dump 10,000 paper sales flyers in your front yard. Would you protect this under freedom of speech? I would, but only if it's his lawn, not mine. | |
| | | 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Tzale :said by biochemistry :He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. Wrong. I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. I much prefer a technological approach to solving this problem (spam filters). When you go to an advertisement sponsored site, you CHOOSE to go there and look at the advertisements.
Spam is about the same as people calling you around dinner time to talk about their carpet cleaning service. For those calls, you now have an "opt-out" system in the do-not-call registry.
Although you can never stop spam originating outside of our country, it is technically possible to setup a similar "opt-out" system for spam, where businesses that are registered in the U.S, that sell to U.S. customers, can be forced to NEVER send spam to those who have registered with the "opt-out" service.
If we can have a national do-not-call registry, we sure as hell can have a national do-not-spam registry, with similar penalties. I believe it can cost a company up to $500 per call if they call anyways while you are on the do-not-call registry, and I am all in favor for an "opt-out".
We should not be subjected to advertisements we did not ask for, only those we choose to see, such as visiting websites, reading magazines or newspapers, and watching television.
And yes, I would like an "opt-out" for the mail delivered spam crap also. In these days we should really save on paper anyways, 95% of it goes straight to the trash, and the 5% I do happen to read (mostly the Best Buy and other techie ads) I can do without, as I can go online and see what the current deals are.
I manage a corporate mail server and anti-spam appliance. And I can tell you that due to the 25+ years we are in existence, and the fact we have been "connected" for more then 15 years on the same domain, many of our email addresses are known somehow, and over 80% of incoming email is spam.
With the do-not-call registry, one rule of law is that if you have done business as a client with a company, they are allowed to call you for 1 year or 2 years, I forget which. Political campaigns and non-profits are also allowed to call you.
I have no problems with applying the same rules to spam. I can live with red cross emails asking me for money, I really don't need to hear every day I need bigger boobs or a bigger dick. No thanks.
DOWN with the spammers! | |
| | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by maartena :said by Tzale :said by biochemistry :He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. Wrong. I think any laws concerning spam should be unconstitutional. I much prefer a technological approach to solving this problem (spam filters). When you go to an advertisement sponsored site, you CHOOSE to go there and look at the advertisements. Spam is about the same as people calling you around dinner time to talk about their carpet cleaning service. For those calls, you now have an "opt-out" system in the do-not-call registry. Although you can never stop spam originating outside of our country, it is technically possible to setup a similar "opt-out" system for spam, where businesses that are registered in the U.S, that sell to U.S. customers, can be forced to NEVER send spam to those who have registered with the "opt-out" service. If we can have a national do-not-call registry, we sure as hell can have a national do-not-spam registry, with similar penalties. I believe it can cost a company up to $500 per call if they call anyways while you are on the do-not-call registry, and I am all in favor for an "opt-out". We should not be subjected to advertisements we did not ask for, only those we choose to see, such as visiting websites, reading magazines or newspapers, and watching television. And yes, I would like an "opt-out" for the mail delivered spam crap also. In these days we should really save on paper anyways, 95% of it goes straight to the trash, and the 5% I do happen to read (mostly the Best Buy and other techie ads) I can do without, as I can go online and see what the current deals are. I manage a corporate mail server and anti-spam appliance. And I can tell you that due to the 25+ years we are in existence, and the fact we have been "connected" for more then 15 years on the same domain, many of our email addresses are known somehow, and over 80% of incoming email is spam. With the do-not-call registry, one rule of law is that if you have done business as a client with a company, they are allowed to call you for 1 year or 2 years, I forget which. Political campaigns and non-profits are also allowed to call you. I have no problems with applying the same rules to spam. I can live with red cross emails asking me for money, I really don't need to hear every day I need bigger boobs or a bigger dick. No thanks. DOWN with the spammers! A do-no-call list/do-no-email list is different... If it was meant to target COMMERCIAL spammers only, then I would not have any problem with it... What I may have a problem with is the fact that it is a federal program... But that is an entirely different subject.
At the end of the day, I strongly feel any do-no-email list will just result in a gross waste of federal money, with little to no benefit to the citizens of this nation.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: No said by Tzale :At the end of the day, I strongly feel any do-no-email list will just result in a gross waste of federal money, with little to no benefit to the citizens of this nation. -Tzale well, we agree on this one point. however, i'm guessing you don't agree that making sending spam illegal and punishable by fine/jail depending on the quantity of the offense? | |
| | | | | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: No said by morbo :said by Tzale :At the end of the day, I strongly feel any do-no-email list will just result in a gross waste of federal money, with little to no benefit to the citizens of this nation. -Tzale well, we agree on this one point. however, i'm guessing you don't agree that making sending spam illegal and punishable by fine/jail depending on the quantity of the offense? I don't think it should be punishable by jail... Fine (quite large!), yes. I just don't think it would work at all... If it would work, then YES, I'd probably support it in theory (not considering federal powers).
Again, this is a rather complex issue. It requires much more thought than a push-jerk reaction from the IT professionals on this website.
-Tzale
--
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. | |
| | | | | 
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by biochemistry :He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. The SPAM from email is no different than the crap I get in my mailbox from the Post Office. I would rather not have any of it, but if people can clutter my USPS mail, then they should be able to do the same thing with electronic mail. I see no difference, only with email it's easier to get rid of it. | |
| | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
3 edits | Re: No The difference is a mail box on your property is the domain of the USPS...no one may place anything in there without paying USPS postage. Your email box is your email box, privately contracted via the ISP. It's your exclusively controlled property.
Them placing email in your box which you pay for and have finite space is no different than them placing a stack of stuff in your garage. If they want to pay me RENT to place their ads in my personal email box great. | |
| | | |
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: No My email space is basically unlimited. I have unlimited email accounts and supposedly unlimited space. Although realistically I would probably run into problems from my after a certain point even though
my domains are supposed to have unlimited space.
My ISP is supposed to be unlimited to. At least no problems yet with the 1TB to TB a month of bandwidth I use.
Anyway at least SPAM is very easy to get rid of. It's less annoying than the crap I get from the USPS mail.said by Bit :The difference is a mail box on your property is the domain of the USPS...no one may place anything in there without paying USPS postage. Your email box is your email box, privately contracted via the ISP. It's your exclusively controlled property. Them placing email in your box which you pay for and have finite space is no different than them placing a stack of stuff in your garage. If they want to pay me RENT to place their ads in my personal email box great. | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: No said by aaronwt :My email space is basically unlimited. I have unlimited email accounts and supposedly unlimited space. The problem is, the email provider is providing "unlimited" to everyone. Spam becomes a cost to them, especially when its cumulative effect is considered.
The fact that the provider (ISP or email) chooses to give their service away for free, or give so-called "unlimited use" doesn't mean it's free. At some level it's an abuse of someone's property.
Mark | |
| | |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by aaronwt :said by biochemistry :He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. The SPAM from email is no different than the crap I get in my mailbox from the Post Office. I would rather not have any of it, but if people can clutter my USPS mail, then they should be able to do the same thing with electronic mail. I see no difference, only with email it's easier to get rid of it. With email it is also cheaper to deliver. After all, if you want the postman to deliver something, you have to PAY per delivered piece of mail.
This country is FREE enough that it would allow companies to send you mailed pieces with Viagra, Dick enlargements, Boob enlargements, Cheap medicine from Canada, etc through your regular mail.... reason that they don't is that no one would put up with advertisements from "dildo world" in their mailbox, and laws would change real quickly.
There are quite a few countries in Europe that have opt-out stickers for mailboxes that say "NO" to postage not addressed to the person that lives there e.g. "current resident" or something like that, and the postman is legally required not to deliver unwanted spam at that point.
I don't see why we won't be able to do such a thing here and at same time do this with spam email as well.
At some point in time email addresses are going to be recycled. Some 43 year old porn addict that once had some ISP account that he hasn't used for 4 years and becomes available, could end up in the hands of an 8 year old registering their first email address. And although the address may not have been used for 4 years, it could still sit in some nasty spam databases.
And to prove my point, I have my own domain. I registered it back in 2000, and create a "usenet@domain.com" account, which only lived for about 1 year, and I used it - as the name said - to post on usenet and receive possible replies back to email. After I started receiving heaps of spam, I figured out I could actually use a fake email account, changed it, and deleted the account.
I recently - 8 years later - reactivated the "usenet" account on my domain just to test and see, and what should have given NDR's for at least 7 years. Within 2 days I had 30+ emails in it with spam. And yes, most of them were in the "bigger boobs" or "bigger dicks" category.
With kids under 12 getting online more and more, chances are likely they will end up with a "previously used" email name.... e.g. one that was used from 1998 to 2003, and then removed by the ISP because the previous owner moved, and then purged from the database in 2008 because it wasn't used for 5 years.
Point is, we sure as hell should be able to add emails to a do-not-spam database, especially nowadays. | |
| | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: No "Boob enlargements"
And based on your avatar that's the last thing you'd buy. 
Sorry, had to go there! | |
| | ggma1126
ggma1126
Premium
join:2008-08-30
Claymont, DE
| I seriously do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution - especially the part about free speech. Most spam in my opinion falls under marketing and advertising - having nothing to do with free speech - they can say what they want and how they want but not in my electronic mail box. | |
| | 
HesRight
@teksavvy.com | Hes Right
End of story | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
1 edit | For those who don't believe that spam costs the recipient (or recipient's ISP) money, let me pose this scenario.
Imagine you have an email server. It sits there, waiting for mail to come in. When a mail comes in, that mail server receives it, figures out where it needs to go, and drops it in a mailbox for later retrieval. In a spam-free world, that machine doesn't have to be all that powerful. It can be some old recycled piece of junk.
Now, add spam and malware to the equation. Now that mail server has to deal with 10 times more mail (as we know, spam accounts for over 90% of email traffic nowadays). In addition to handling the extra traffic, it also now has to determine if each message is legitimate or spam, or if it contains malware. Suddenly that old recycled Pentium III isn't cutting the mustard anymore. You (or your ISP) have to invest in more powerful hardware in order to handle the same amount of (legitimate) email traffic. This is a cost incurred by the ISPs and email providers due to spammers. In addition to the hardware costs, there's additional bandwidth cost, electricity to run the more-powerful servers, maintenance (keeping the spam and virus filters updated), dealing with complaints, etc.
I wonder how much it costs Yahoo or Google just to maintain their anti-spam? I'm sure the cost isn't trivial.
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
| | Nizmo
join:2008-04-16
Caliente, NV | 9 years in prison for spamming? Isn't that little too harsh? | |
| | 
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA | said by biochemistry :
What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam.
DAMN RIGHT!!!!!
The USA is so screwed up its not funny! | |
| | | | | | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Re: Glad the Supreme court mooned Jeremy. Well now everyone knows it was him
I think life might be about to get really hard for him | |
| | |
See 26 replies to this post | |
| kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| If he has a constitutional right to spam... ... then I have a constitutional right to a clean inbox!
A right to free speech doesn't mean we're obligated to listen to said free speech.
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Spammers 1/People 0 Making a law to stop spam is no different than using software or setting up your email box to block spam. If we use the free speech analogy regarding spam, then most of us could get sued because blocking spam from our email box or through Google would be considered inhibiting free speech.
Spam is not considered free speech though some people would have you believe that. Permitting free speech is so someone can express there opinions without fear of reprisal. For example, you can voice your opinion against your own government without fear of being locked up. Advertising for a product to make money is not considered free speech because there is no opinion behind the product that is being sold, it's just money.
So far all the spam I have received is either to sell sex toys, drugs, sex sites or some scam artist trying to steal your money. Someone can't tell me that trying to steal someones money through a email is considered free speech. I think Virgina had every right to do what they did. | |
| | MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Spammers 1/People 0 Why can people never get this amendment right, all it guarantees is that the government will not hinder your free speech, which this law technically was (and I use the phrase loosely). It does not force private citizens or private companies to grant free speech. If someone is saying something you do not like you have the option of putting in ear plugs or walking away. Same as what you were saying, you have the right to filter what you want but according to the law the government cannot. Of course just like the person saying stuff you don't like you can't go hit him likewise you can't legally try to DDOS attack the spammer.
We should have something in place though that say that once you receive unsolicited email and tell them to stop that then it should be illegal. Just like the unwanted phone call at dinner time, I tell them don't call me again and if they do it's harassment | |
| 
serge666
join:2004-06-07
Little Falls, NJ
| sigh NO. spam is not considered free speech. It's considered marketing. 99.9% of all spam are adverts for illegal drugs/porn or how to get said drugs/porn. when was the last time you saw an ad on tv that said GET YOUR COLLEGE DEGREE RIGHT NOW FOR ONLY $49.95!!!11 or I am nijerian royoltee and i ned you 2 send me money, please excuess the fact that I cant spel nijeria or royoltee!
sorry guys, shoveling adverts down my throat is not free speech, it's invasion of privacy. >:( And by the way, spammers who go out of their way to circumvent spam filters should tell you something about their "business" don't you think?? | |
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| The Mistake causing Loophole The problem and loophole is the Jeremy and the courts are making it a speech issue when it should be a property rights issue. The e-mail may be looked at as speech but the sending it involves the unauthorized use of another's property. Free free speech should never contradict property rights. | |
|
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Crap from electronic mail is no different than USPS crap. said by biochemistry :He has the right to free speech. What he does not have is the right to clutter my email box with his spam. The SPAM from email is no different than the crap I get in my mailbox from the Post Office. I would rather not have any of it, but if people can clutter my USPS mail, then they should be able to do the same thing with electronic mail. I see no difference, only with email it's easier to get rid of it. | |
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | Fairness doctrine for spammers Why don't the democrats dream up a fairness doctrine for spammers ? Saying that the internet cant handle only one type of spam, and it must limited. So other spammers can get through. i am just saying. | |
| phrider
join:1999-12-17
Los Angeles, CA
| Time for a Privacy Amendment to the Constitution? Perhaps it's time for a serious debate on a privacy amendment to the constitution -- something that would cover involuntary contacts, from spam to robo-vote-for-me calls.
The challenge is effectively drawing the line between free speech rights and imposition on the time and resources of individuals by those claiming these rights. | |
|
h7
@charter.com
| pAl Gore They'd all make great friends with Al Gore, who refused to pass anti-spam laws back in 1992 (and no, he didn't invent the internet, his only claim to fame was he was the first person in the White House who actually USED the internet, golly gee). Al Gore's argument back then was the same, that Freedom of Speech gave them the right. That's pretty obnoxious considering that his wife, Tipper Gore, started the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center), who would have mandated ratings for music like what movies have, and as a result the industry invented Parental Advisory Stickers, the first of which received it was Ice-T's album. Always those who advocate bs like this in the name of Freedom of Speech never mention the counter-positive of that, which is Freedom of Privacy, or Freedom FROM Speech. The second people confuse or compromise one for the other we are doomed to receive constant from those with assy opinions that are impossible to avoid because it is impossible to turn it off. Jeremy Jaynes and every other spammer should be sentenced although it will never happen now because of lawmakers who are on the crux when the problem first starts aren't willing to make any decisions at all because of just plain ignorance. The same thing is happening now with Internet spying with representatives playing dumb like they have never used a computer and so are all just bought by all the big corps who are doing it. Sad, especially for anybody who has used computers for long enough to want to keep an email for more than a few months, most especially years, and the closer to 20 years it becomes or passes, the more jaded anyone (including myself) becomes.
h#7 | |
| 
sawman
Premium
join:2002-04-25
BC KS
·Mediacom
| scumbag robocalling spammer Conrad J Braun This scumbug runs spamming and robocalling Homeytel. He's been robocalling people because he has a hard-on for Kansas officials. I think he should have a cell in Leavenworth penitentiary, not harrassing us by phone on Saturday morning. Anyone supporting his "right" to do that should share his cell.
Conrad J. Braun, Founder
conbraun@hotmail.com
HomeyTel™
3065 Rosecrans Place, Suite 210A
San Diego, CA 92110
1-619-223-1022
Fax: 1-619-564-4408
Dedicated Recording Line: 1-619-564-4671
homeytel.com
Home:
Conrad J Braun
4431 Mentone Street
San Diego, CA 92107
According to www2.ljworld.com Conrad Braun was convicted of battery in Johnson County, Kansas in 1989, trespassing in 1990 and 1991 and making a criminal threat in 1991. He spent time in state prison and the Larned Mental Health Facility. Braun was convicted in federal court in 1994 for wire fraud and interstate transportation of funds obtained by fraud. Braun was sentenced to 29 months in prison in late 2005 for blackmailing the new husband of his ex-wife. It seems that "Con" is not only his name, it's his life's ambition.
He also runs www.fairtrialsinamerica.org(his "political" organization)
bumblebee@fairtrialsinamerica.org
1-619-819-6814 | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| What a waste of time all of this carping about spam is going to net exactly nothing. I don't like spam either but there is nothing I can do about it. There are things far more important, Like a President, who will be savaged at the G20 summit, and who will surely elevate President Carter to the 2nd worst President in our history.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| They also have the Constitutional right to... ... prove to the world that they're dumber than a bag of rocks, and they tend to do just that, time and time again!
See more here, for an excellent example of spammer stupidity: »[Spam] More proof that spammers are %&$(@*$ retards...
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
| 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Just to be clear... The Supreme Court is saying that anyone has the "right" to trespass on my property in order to say anything that they want to for whatever reason they choose.
And they call themselves "justices". | |
| |
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
| Re: Just to be clear... said by mod_wastrel :The Supreme Court is saying that anyone has the "right" to trespass on my property in order to say anything that they want to for whatever reason they choose. And they call themselves "justices". Just as I have the right to shoot them for trespassing 
I know a guy that bought a foreclosure house.
At the time he didn't know it was once a druggie house.
He was inside fixing things up when someone kicked in the
door. When asked why he shot the intruder 5 times, his reply
was "I ran out of bullets."
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Never use all your bullets up on a single intruder, as you never know when a spammer will happen to walk by... 
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
| | | |
|
Glad the Supreme court mooned Jeremy.
·
Law "as drafted" unconstitutional; but can be rewritten