how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
390 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | They have a right to free speech... ...but not a right to use services I pay for to do it.
Meanwhile the First Amendment says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
Universities, corporations and message board operators are free to abridge any damn thing they want. | |
|  | | Re: They have a right to free speech... Exactly. I have a right to free speech, but not a right to free speech in your home.
BTW, few people realize that the CAN SPAM act allows any website you "transact" with to spam you CONSTANTLY FOR THREE YEARS and also for all politicians to spam you WHENEVER THEY WANT TO.
Please pardon my Lewis Black moment. | |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by oliphant:Universities, corporations and message board operators are free to abridge any damn thing they want. Maybe not, if it's a public university. As part of government, they are very limited in what type of infringement they can impose on free expression. That would very unfortunate, but may be the case nonetheless. | |
| | oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: They have a right to free speech... They'll have a hard time arguing that they have a Constitutional right to crash the university mail system. Conversely I think the university should counter-sue for damages resulting from the delays and downing of their mail servers, especially after the spammer was asked to stop. I think that was what the ruling against White Buffalo Ventures was based on...that the university wasn't obligated to sacrifice resources to provide spammers with an advertising platform.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com | |
| | | fantomposterPhantom PosterPremium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH | Re: They have a right to free speech... said by oliphant:They'll have a hard time arguing that they have a Constitutional right to crash the university mail system. Conversely I think the university should counter-sue for damages resulting from the delays and downing of their mail servers, especially after the spammer was asked to stop. I think that was what the ruling against White Buffalo Ventures was based on...that the university wasn't obligated to sacrifice resources to provide spammers with an advertising platform. I agree there is no free speech issue here, that was decided against spammers about 8 years ago, in an Ohio Federal Court.
But the University sold the email addresses to the spammer.
The university owns the email addresses, since it is their domain. They sold them to the 'spammer'. They gave the spammer consent. So, the spammer, at first, was not a spammer. They had purchased the email addresses from the owner.
Now, when the University asked the spammer to stop, and they did not, they were instantly in violation of the Can-Spam Act. And they became spammers at that point.
Now, could the spammer go after the University for the purchase price of the email addresses. I would think so, and they should. | |
| | | | oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: They have a right to free speech... If the spammer had sent only 500 messages or sent the same number of messages just over a long period of time there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
IOW, just because they sold the addresses doesn't mean that a spammer is then given permission to crash the server.
IMO the addresses still have value, people still visited the site. He simply misused the addresses by crashing their mail server and not curbing the activity when requested to.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com | |
| | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: They have a right to free speech... A couple of points:
First, legally, certainly the recipient may filter or ask his ISP to filter. This case, however, seems to involve an ISP filtering for everyone, with no opportunity for the recipient to say "yes" or "no".
Second, in light of that point, you should consider the cases involving free speech in gated communities, doorman apartment buildings, and other "closed communities". I think you'll find that there IS a right of free speech in such cases, but you may also find that it extends only to political speech, not necessarily commercial speech. Now, comparing such "closed communities" with a "gatekeeper" to an ISP, you should be able to see there likely will be litigation here--unless the ISP does the filtering ONLY at the request of the end user. (Note that VZ has lately been accused of blocking entire non-US domains to block spam, and has angered many users in the process. A selectable filter would work better here for practical reasons, too.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | fantomposterPhantom PosterPremium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH | said by oliphant:If the spammer had sent only 500 messages or sent the same number of messages just over a long period of time there probably wouldn't have been a problem. IOW, just because they sold the addresses doesn't mean that a spammer is then given permission to crash the server. IMO the addresses still have value, people still visited the site. He simply misused the addresses by crashing their mail server and not curbing the activity when requested to. Yes, not curbing when asked is out of line. If your interpitation on the server crash is accurate, I totally agree. Spammer out of line. I think we will never know. The article is very vauge on how many spams the spammer sent, and who actually crashed the server.
"The university has a policy blocking all spammers, and Jordan said the school has blocked between 1,500 and 2,000 of them. He said spam has caused several delays in the UT computer system, including one crash that lasted 48 hours."
I read that as 'spam' caused the delays and crashed the server. I am not so sure that it was 'this spam'. Pretty interesting choice of words by the University. It almost reads like the spammer in question sent the 1500 to 2000 and someone else crashed the server with a serious spam attack.
Tough call, wish the reporting was more accurate. | |
|
| |
|
