 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Wrong I should have a right to not have MY services that I pay for used for commercial gain by others. If Jaynes wants to speak he's free to, just not using MY services. Same should go for faxing where they jokers use MY machines, MY toner, MY paper for their speech. All of it should be illegal.
If they want to advertise, let them use direct mail or some other service what the spammer's expense.
These justices need to pull their heads out of their ass. |
|
| "I support the constitution as long as it doesn't inconvenience ME." |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Wrong. I support the Constitution so long as one person's rights don't infringe on those of another's.
There is no Constitutional right for spammers to use the private resources of another. These justices make up shit as they go.
Hopefully the Supreme Court can see the difference between speech rights and property rights just as they did when the Do Not Call law was upheld when they sided with the Denver appeals court which affirmed Do not call laws that "target speech that invades the privacy of the home, a personal sanctuary that enjoys a unique status in our constitutional jurisprudence." |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to rdmiller
You have a right to privacy. These people invade your privacy to deliver all this worthless drivel.
Course the same could be said for a few arguments up here.
Television commercials use your electricity, your entertainment systems.
Telephone spam is the same issue. Your phone etc.
IMO it should all be regulated like telemarketing. If you do not have a commercial relationship with a company then they can not send you advertising unless you opt in. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Television is different. You are compensated for the advertising. If spammers want to pay for my fax toner, phone bill and email services, great. |
|
 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:You have a right to privacy. These people invade your privacy to deliver all this worthless drivel. Course the same could be said for a few arguments up here. Television commercials use your electricity, your entertainment systems. Telephone spam is the same issue. Your phone etc. IMO it should all be regulated like telemarketing. If you do not have a commercial relationship with a company then they can not send you advertising unless you opt in. I don't like spam, nor do I support spammers. The primary reason is that I beleive it wastes bandwidth and switching/routing capabilities on a network. (Even though most networks should be just fine with the current amount of spam) However, to compare e-mail spam with telephone spam or TV commercials is just something you can't do. E-Mail spam is easily avoided, and if not avoided easily filtered into a spam folder. I have 10+ public e-mail addresses all being forwarded to my GMail account and I receive quite a bit of spam. However, it all goes to the spam folder. So I really don't care. It doesn't bother me, because it isn't.
Now, I do realize that there are still people who have no idea how to setup a spam filter, or are still on e-mail servers that provide lack-luster filtering technology - But thats their own fault for not staying ahead with technology.
The bottom line is that e-mail spam is not nearly as intrusive or annoying as telephone or TV spam. The primary reason being that which I mentioned. |
|
| reply to NOCMan
Show me where the word "privacy" appears in the constitution. That right was invented by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. |
|
| said by rdmiller:Show me where the word "privacy" appears in the constitution. That right was invented by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. The word "privacy" may not be in the Constitution, but the concept exists in the form of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
 ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | reply to Mchart
said by Mchart:The bottom line is that e-mail spam is not nearly as intrusive or annoying as telephone or TV spam. The primary reason being that which I mentioned. Not true, TV spam as you put it pays the bulk of the costs to produce the shows you watch. Spam and telemarketing are the same however, Both of them are an abuse on services that you pay for out of your own pocket. In this day and age many businesses use e-mail for communication between customers and clients, why should they have to pay more to keep the spammers crap out? Why should companies have to buy bigger servers, and employ people simply to keep this junk from getting to the end users? Simply put, Why should I have to pay for you to send me junk I do not want to see? This is no different than telemarketers calling your cell phone at all hours of the night where not only is it a major disturbance and a health issue (poor nights sleep) it costs you money.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
|
|
