Political Spam Legitimate Campaign Tactic? The Wall Street Journal ran a story recently that explored the increase in political spam as a campaign tool. That story is now available free via Gigalaw.com, and takes a look at the gray area in defining which spam should, and which spam shouldn't, be allowed to reach your inbox. Chances are if you find these political e-mails eating up your bandwidth to be irritating (like the campaign by a recent California candidate), you're out of luck. Courts have traditionally closely guarded the right of political free speech, an issue that is sure to get a good work out in the coming year.
|
 cbs228Geeks Of The World, Unite
join:2000-09-04
Saint Louis, MO | I don't care what kind of spam it is... .... Be it get rich quick schemes or political campaigns I will report all spam to the offender's ISP. May any politician who uses spam fall into a Realtime Blackhole Server and never be heard from again.
They may exercise their right to political free speech but I sure as heck don't have to listen to it!
--
If you stare too long into the abyss the abyss stares back at you. -Nietzsche | |
|  |
|  Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is...
It would be interesting to see an ISP contend that a political candidate or organization's sending of purely political unsolicited emails somehow violates their TOS, and to then have a court decide, as they have with other free speech matters, just where the limits are as to Internet private property rights and political speech.
Clark
[text was edited by author 2002-07-13 11:05:09] | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... Then maybe the definition needs updating. Firing off mass emailing of political tripe is just as much SPAM as UCE is.
| |
| | | | | Personally, I have a simple definition of spam.
If I don't know you, haven't done business with you, and didn't ask you to send me e-mail, then its spam and will be reported.
As my company's postmaster, when our content filtering software tags something as spam, I apply the following rule: Does it have ANY business related purpose to our business?
If it does, I let it through. If not, it gets reported. | |
| | | |  KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... That is absurd
KM | |
|
| | cbs228Geeks Of The World, Unite
join:2000-09-04
Saint Louis, MO | My personal definition of Spam:
If an electronic mail message....
- Is BCC'd (Blind Carbon Copied) to more than ten people
- Was sent to multiple persons and is not part of a mailing list to which you personally subscribed and may unsubscribe at any time
- The parties sending the electronic mail will [probably] not cease and desist when asked to do so
- There is an attempt to disguise the message's point of origin my the manipulation or falsification of SMTP headers
- The message was not sent by anyone you know
If the message matches two of the above or more, I will consider it spam and report it. Messages will also be considered spam on the basis of content.
--
If you stare too long into the abyss the abyss stares back at you. -Nietzsche | |
| | | |  MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
 ·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... said by cbs228:
My personal definition of Spam:
If an electronic mail message....
- Is BCC'd (Blind Carbon Copied) to more than ten people
- Was sent to multiple persons and is not part of a mailing list to which you personally subscribed **snip snip**
A thumbs up, and well put. | |
|
| | | | Clark252 wrote "The well-accepted definition (and that proffered by even the most rabid anti-spammers) is "unsolicited commercial email," which means that political email cannot be considered spam."
No, Unsolicited Bulk Email is at least as common a definition. I don't care if you're spamming porn, drugs, chain letters, your political/religious opinions, or whatever. If you're sending messages to total strangers in multiple quantities, you're a spammer.
Also, the only people trying to drag free speech into this debate are 1) spammers or 2) people who've never read the Constitution. 1st Amendment: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
It doesn't say Earthlink, or any Mom & Pop ISP, is obligated to carry your mail. Kinda like the way the New York Times isn't violating your right to free speech/press when they decline to print your 10,000 word letter to the editor on the front page. The GOVERNMENT can't stop them from doing it, but their accountants sure can. Spam = theft. I only wish this guy & I both lived in Chicago - then I could vote against him two or three times. | |
| | | | | |  Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is...
Let's look at it from another angle. The use of email is becoming more and more ubiquitous. However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim? How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate?
I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about. To allow otherwise opens a communications conduit of ever-increasing importance to the possibility of abuse, both commercial and political.
Clark | |
| | | | | | | Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... said by clark252:
However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim?
No- not at all, and here's why. If they did it like the rest of the responsible businesses do, they'd have a card at their fundraisers, or a form on their webpage that the recipient would fill out which says "I REQUEST to receive e-mail from you"
said by clark252:
How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate? I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about.
That's why most of your ISP's now have an On\Off filtering feature. Anything that they think is junk goes in a folder on each user's mailbox. If you find that something goes there that shouldn't, you tell it to accept it, and it does.
As my company's e-mail Postmaster, it is my job to make sure that e-mail etiquette is followed. Even when a manager says, "We can send to whoever we want", and I have to explain why that's not the case.
And I'm proud to say that we've never had a complaint by being respectful of people's time and e-mail boxes. | |
|
| | |  richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | said by Die Spammers:
Clark252 wrote Kinda like the way the New York Times isn't violating your right to free speech/press when they decline to print your 10,000 word letter to the editor on the front page. The GOVERNMENT can't stop them from doing it, but their accountants sure can. Spam = theft. I only wish this guy & I both lived in Chicago - then I could vote against him two or three times.
Agreed - to a point. The NY Times [or any other media]has accountants and/or editors that can knock down things people send in which would not be money-making. But when you get SPAM, YOU are losing bandwith [which could be considered money, since you pay for your bandwith] and have no way of editing it out
Maybe when you join a political party, you should have the option to "opt-in" for e-mail from that party.
Or at one time [maybe when you go to vote?] , you should have the option to "opt-in" for any political e-mail.
These are only suggestions off the top of my head, but we should have some choice here!! | |
|
| | Sent me spam, lose my vote | |
| |  Copzilla$Mmm... Donuts
join:2000-10-10
Friendswood, TX | Re: Sent me spam, lose my vote said by Count Hogula:
Simple as that.
I'll ditto that.
Spam by MY definition is any bulk email that is sent to me that I didn't OPT-IN for.
Everything else is a nuisance, and will cost the politician a vote. But why is it that I'm not surprised politicians are using spam email?
Spammer = slime
Politician = slime
Slime by any other name is still slime. | |
|
 nology
join:2001-06-16
Minneapolis, MN | No Vote! Same here, Im in California, and I already wasent going to vote for Jones, now no-one I know is....
-Brendon
--
Skylink Wireless www.skylinkwireless.cjb.net | |
|  AnonProxyProxy of AnonPremium
join:2001-05-12
ß | SPAM = SPAM How simple can it be...I don't care what your "end goal" is.
The other thing I find odd, when has politics NOT been a money making commercial venture. | |
| | | Political email? Free Speech? Since when do I have to pay for the opposition to spread its message?!? If a politician has a message for me they can write it on a piece of paper, stick a stamp on it, and mail it to me. When it arrives in my inbox, I've paid for it and unless I've asked for it, it's spam. Why don't these idiots send out fliers that are marked "postage due"?
Just think of the anti-spam laws we'll get with these idiots in office!
--
My high bandwidth server is hosted on a 56k dial-up. | |
| |  Jon GebWal-Mart Sucks
join:2001-01-09
Howell, MI | Re: Political email? Free Speech? I thought this guy got knocked out of the primaries by Bill Simon anyhow? | |
| | |  RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Political email? Free Speech? I think he did, but I'm voting for Gray Davis again. | |
|
 huacoPremium
join:2002-06-27
Houston, TX
| not likely I suppose it's conceivable that they might be on the right side of some more important issue and I would reconsider but the fact is:
They have demonstrated that they want something from me more than they respect me as a fellow American.
They have very poor judgement or are totally clueless.
I use this same criteria when dealing with companies that use spam and telemarketing. The companies don't get my money and the odds of the politician getting my vote are minuscule.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-13 21:28:04] | |
| cvb53
join:2002-01-21
Baden, PA | Think | |
| | wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | Re: Think said by cvb53:
I hate spam as much as the next person to but advertisement helps to keep content free. I tolerate it and even sign up for some offers it helps my favorite sites stay up. Think if they all start charging the net will be rendered all most useless. I pay big bucks just for my broadband I can't afford more.
Very true. But these are mailings that YOU opted-in for. They are NOT unsolicited bulk e-mail. There's a difference.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | cvb53
join:2002-01-21
Baden, PA | I realize that.When you sign up it almost a guarantee that the spam starts coming in. I don't necessarily buy anything I go for free info and such,then I just unsuscribe. This generates click thru payments for that site and helps there content to stay free. | |
|
| | Simply let them know they are no better than ... I would easily write whatever government official that I receive Spam from and let them know you will easily vote for the other candidate simply because they have proven themselves to be part of the worse there is in the world.
I would certainly not vote for any dumb politician stupid enough to commit to a campaign based on, or including, any form of Spam.
Any politician thinking they need to by pushy in the face of voters is simply looking for 'useful idiots' and not intelligent voters. An intelligent voter does not need Spam, whether in their mailbox or on their television. | |
| exick0
join:2002-04-26
Burbank, CA | A NEW definition for spam Instead of "unsolicited commercial email" (which covers a rather hefty chunk of what I consider spam) it can be changed to "unsolicited email intended to further the interests of the sender and/or those affiliated with the sender."
This way we can include political spam, and most likely any other type of spam that will ever be created, while at the same time not making it so broad that it covers things like chain letters and such. These, while annoying, are not really spam. | |
| | | Political Spam Given the amount of money spent on political campaigns, unsolicited political e-mail should be considered spam. I agree that you have the right to send out anything you want. I have the right to ignore it! Personally, I'll give you one chance. Keep it up and it gets reported, no ifs ands or buts. | |
|
| |
|
|
