On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:52:32 -0400 "James C. Sewell" <jims@MPGN.COM> writes:
At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming here? Is spamming free speech?
Yes.
No. I think we can all (most) agree that spam-email is like junk-snailmail. In that case there are a few things to consider:
1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient. 2. Junkmail is under the full authority of the Postmaster. If they do anything illegal they have an authority to which they must answer and may face criminal charges for. 3. You can't legally stuff mailboxes by driving around the neighborhood. It is against the law for me to walk up to your mailbox and put something in it. Should the same be true of emailboxes? 4. Junkmail is usually at a lower priority than "real" mail and due to costs is usually easily identifiable. Email isn't.
And one relating to only email:
I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes letting Eudora sort through my mailbox because my filter rules are so numerous and complex due to me trying to block spam.
We must remember that the First Amendment does not allow us to say any thing at any time via any medium we choose. There are limits to it, usually in the name of public safety and harassment. There should be similar limits in the Internet. I'm not saying we shouldn't let you tell others how get rich quick but that you should not be allowed to mail to *@*.* just to tell the world how great we are.
Jim
Jim Sewell - jims@tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL
Why should the spammers pay for it, any more than anyone else should. They are still in some way paying for the E-Mail I assume, by keeping up a server or paying someone else for the convienince of E-Mail. If they tried to force spammers to pay money they would have to have a way to decide if someone was spamming.A good excuse to read E-Mail?