Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" should have been the headline if you were intellectually consistent.
When it comes to the 4th amendment you are hard, hard over on "the courts MUST approve ANY police or national security investigation -- MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY trumps ALL criminal or terrorist investigation activity".
Now, when it's the 1st amendment vs SPAM, suddenly you don't think the Consitution is so important.
Hypocrites. You just have an agenda and you will cover yourself in whatever argument suits your purpose. |
|
|
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MrMoody:Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. You're simply making my point for me. You have an agenda and you will interpret the Constitution as it upholds your agenda. If you were consistent you'd be happy anytime the courts knock down the prosecution on Consitutional grounds.
I don't ever want to hear you say "The Constitution is being trampled!" again because you are trampling it right now with your anti-free-speech statement. |
|
 JSYPremium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY | Since when is free speech protected if it can harm others? This is the same "you can't scream FIRE in a movie theatre" argument. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to say here, but you're not being consistent yourself if you're comparing potential harmful free speech vs. harmless free speech.
Yeah, you can say what is harmful may be subjective, but I think there is little doubt that spam causes stress on infrastructure in which a bunch of money is invested in fighting each year. I know my company does. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by JSY:Since when is free speech protected if it can harm others? ... So I take it you DISAGREE with the Court's decision that at least some spam is Constitutionally protected free speech?
I am simply pointing out that this site applies Constitutional arguments selectively as it suits their agenda -- and that pretending that you are defending the Constitution against the oncoming police state via the courts on "warrantless wiretapping" is hypocritical unless you AGREE with this Court decision. |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | You can't even begin to compare commercial solicitation using the private property of others without permission or compensation to wiretapping.
This is just more of the same courts making up Constitiutional rights that don't exist. Now these spammers have a Constitutional right to use my hardware and services to advertise to me. |
|
JSYPremium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:So I take it you DISAGREE with the Court's decision that at least some spam is Constitutionally protected free speech? If you can find me spam that does not potentially harm others, then absolutely I think that that form of spam is Constitutionally protected.
Personally, I think the Constitution is constantly misinterpreted and twisted by people based on their agenda (the issue of "privacy" being amongst the biggest ones) and this place is no different - which is why I said I didn't necessarily disagree with you but if I'm to look at consistency from the courts that have ruled that some forms of free speech that are harmful is not protected - I have to believe that spam falls in that category. |
|
| reply to JSY
The "You can't scream FIRE in a movie theater" argument is to prevent injury or death. I don't know of any spam that could cause injury or death. Please try again with another analogy. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to JSY
All spam harms others as it consumes resources and costs them money. |
|
JSYPremium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY | reply to battleop
Actually it's to prevent public panic - not necessarily injury or death. It's obviously a stretch but I don't think you can ever say that you will never have any spam that could cause panic - or even injury/death. Is it possible that a mass influx of spam could cause overloaded pipelines and bring down systems so critical information couldn't get through? Perhaps very unlikely, but I would not say impossible. Here's a laughable yet plausible analogy - what about the hospital that had to spend a huge bunch of resources fighting spam when those resources could have been used to improve facilities - and maybe improve the survival rate? Again, very distant and improbable but enough that you couldn't say spam couldn't lead on to panic/injury/death.
The bottom line is that you know what I mean. |
|
| reply to battleop
How about this one. I park my car in front of your house and blast advertising at your house through a loud speaker 24/7. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to MyDogHsFleas
No, they are applying common sense, while you're bashing the site and the posters. I think you're just advancing your agenda. |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
IMO the spam itself (no matter the subject) is protected by the Constitution. However, there is a problem with the delivery.
A person standing at an intersection yelling about abortion doesn't cost anyone anything.
Someone sending out 10 million emails with the same speech costs people money. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to KrK
said by KrK:No, they are applying common sense, while you're bashing the site and the posters. I think you're just advancing your agenda. OK KrK, I don't want to EVER see another post from you talking about the Bush administration "trampling the Constitution" as you are wont to do. The new criterion is apparently "common sense" according to you. Not Constitutional law.
And, no bashing here... just making a point about inconsistency in thinking. I hoped to actually make some people think about their positions. It doesn't work with everyone. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to callipygian2
said by callipygian2:IMO the spam itself (no matter the subject) is protected by the Constitution. However, there is a problem with the delivery. A person standing at an intersection yelling about abortion doesn't cost anyone anything. Someone sending out 10 million emails with the same speech costs people money. Oh I didn't realize the First Amendment said "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... UNLESS IT COSTS PEOPLE MONEY." Thanks for educating me. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
You don't want? Well, so what? You can't apply a standard of your opinion and declare it law. Wasting people's time and money with UCE and SPAM is not a right. Free speech is a right. In no way can opposing SPAM mean you have to accept the Bush Administration's anti-constitutional moves. You're trying to score political points by linking the two. They aren't the same, and people opposed to both are consistent in their positions.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
joeabb65Premium
join:2008-06-17
Medford, MA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. One could argue that a breach of the peace and cause violnece aspect could be linked to spam and impact it has on the receiver of that spam. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to KrK
said by KrK:Wasting people's time and money with UCE and SPAM is not a right. Free speech is a right. My entire point is as follows. Please try to stick with me here.
1) The court disagrees with you on this issue, citing the Constitution. You say "they are wrong about the Constitution."
2) On "warrantless wiretapping", the court agreed with you, citing the Constitution. You say "they are right about the Constitution."
3) Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you say "you are wrong... in case 1 no laws were broken, in case 2 laws were broken, and the Constitution says so."
4) This is an inconsistent position at best, or a hypocritical one at worst. You are simply reciting your OPINION about what's Constitutional or not. And you want to have it both ways... when the courts agree with you, they are right, and when they disagree with you, they are wrong.
My conclusion is that you need to stop using the Constitution to pound away at people you disagree with, and start saying "In my OPINION...". |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to MyDogHsFleas
spammers cause unneeded stress on Corporate and ISP networks with their garbage. spam has caused major effects on bandwidth in the global email system and spammers tend to use bots placed on people's computers to act as spam zombies and raise their spam potential(which violates computer crimes laws).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:Now, when it's the 1st amendment vs SPAM, suddenly you don't think the Consitution is so important. Wrong, because free speech does not cover spam in the sense that someone going door to door or speaking on the corner of two streets does. In those two cases there isn't any cost associated with the exercise of their free speech, however, in the case of spam their is a cost - the cost of my bandwidth, my disk space on the server and the client, etc. In other words, the exercise of their freedom of speech (the spammers) impinges on my rights and property. It would be akin to a person coming in through your front door, taking out a staple gun and posting advertisements on your walls, ceiling or floor.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
