You Have a Constitutional Right to Send Spam > "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"

reply to Automate

Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"

reply to JSY
If they want to pay the server costs for me to run a mailserver, I will gladly let them send their crap to me.

However, this is not freedom of speech, because this is not free, it is infringing upon someone else and costing them. The right of your speech ends when it infringes upon mine. It is not all-or-nothing.

You can think the Constitution is misinterpreted all you like, clearly you have an opinion and want to push it on others, while being inconsistent and idealistic yourself.

No surprise.
--
Moore/Alexander 2008

Conservatives love religious-like aphorisms so here's one: "Freedom isn't free. It's Made in China."

What everyone is trying to get at here, is that the right to free speech does not confer the right to steal services to spread it. TV, mail, phone ads are not theft, spam is.

If I go hijack a TV transmitter (no permission from the owners) and put myself on it trying to get votes for Ralph Nader, are my actions protected by the Constitution? Defend this position.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Spam by definition is unsolicited advertising sent to someone. With that definition in mind, I disagree with the court's decision and do not think it is covered by free speech.
Just like I have a no soliciting sign on my front door and when a salesperson ignores and knocks anyway, I close the door in their face.
They have the right to free speech, but I have to right to not have to hear it in the privacy of my home, too.

reply to MrMoody
Your analogy is well off from the point I was making. Really, really out there. I pay for a mailserver, yet I pay more because of some idiot trying to advertise to me. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of times over.

If you're going to try to make an analogy for me to defend, how about a relevant one, like dumping advertisement or vote-for-Nader signs in my back yard so I have to pay more in garbage fees to get rid of or store them.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
i dont necissarily agree with spam, but a 9 year prison sentence is a little bit harsh. They are quick to lock you up in virginia.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
I think you could have made your point without being insulting to everyone.

The law was poorly written. It violated the constitition so it got struck down as it should have.

You can throw all the free newspapers you want on my front lawn, but if you open my mailbox and put it in, you will be guilty of a federal crime. They should have taken a different approach at stopping spam. What they did in the end was waste a lot of tax payer money on a poorly written law.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
How does the constitution 1st ammendment have anything to do with private property? The constitution only has to do with the Government. We're not talking about government property here, we're talking about private property.

You cannot, for instance, go into a Wal-Mart and say stuff Wal-Mart finds objectionable. They can and will ask you to leave their property. And if you don't want to, you don't get to cite 1st ammendment to stop the police from hauling you off for tresspassing or other charges.

Also, SPAM is usually commercial speech, trying to sell something. That has clear case law restricting it (No TV ads for Cigarettes for instance). I think this WILL be overturned on appeal, as it's clearly pretty far out there compared to other similar cases (See telemarketing, the above TV ads).

I think this will clearly come down as NOT being a free speech issue, unless the courts want to open challanges to the rules on a broad swath of similar issues.
--
Opera 9.51(Build 10081); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3

reply to dnoyeB

reply to MrMoody
or extend to any form that could cost me money, or invade my privacy.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Nope.

You're incorrect. That's not what I say, nor is it inconsistent in anyway.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
ok once the other ISPs follow Comcast with bandwidth limits can we send these spammers a bill?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to MyDogHsFleas
If you knew a little more about laws surrounding free speech, you would know that not all speech is protected as free speech.

For starters, there's the famous "you can't falsely scream fire in a movie theater" bit. And then there are other things... Going into the middle of a public mall on a Saturday morning and screaming obscenities at the top of your lungs would not be protected (if you doubt me, I suggest you try it and report back here what happens when you tell the police that you have such a right).

Business related speech is yet another category that can be (and is) regulated. Just like junk faxes are illegal, spam should be illegal. It costs internet providers money for bandwidth-- money to send the mail, money to receive the mail. It costs ISPs money to store the mail on their servers. And then it costs money to send the mail to ISP customers in bandwidth use. And let's not forget the customers, who are forced to use bandwidth to download the mail, and waste computer cycles to process the mail... and potentially waste disk space to store the mail. Spam costs money-- it is not free to the recipients. And as such, it should be classified with junk faxes and not be permitted to be sent unless specifically asked for by a person.
--
Don't hope for a better life-- vote for one.
John McCain for president

reply to MyDogHsFleas
He didn't lose his freedom of speech. He was free to compose his email anyway he wanted. But when he sends it anywhere, it is no longer just a free speech matter.

If you can't understand that, then you are incapable of logical thought.