* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 17:00]:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
I somewhat agree here.. but probably on different grounds. Such an effort may be taxes well spent under the right circumstances, but if the same people who would enforce spam who are also enforcing the current telemarketing laws, it would be money wasted, because these people are unmotivated.
You seem to miss the fundamental point of what 'law' is for in a democracy.
Please explain.
I can't quite agree here. I'm 100% for free speech, and if a spammer wants to print a newspaper, I have no objection. But if the spammer wants to deliver this newspaper by walking into my home and dump a stack of newspapers on my keyboard, we have problems.
What if all he's doing it dumping them on your front porch?
That's no good either. If he's tresspassing in order to put obsticles in front of my front door to trip over, expect me to take actions. I don't care what's printed.. It could be blank paper for all I care, but I don't want it on my property. It's litter that I have to deal with.
Your comparison of your email inbox and your living room being equivalent is flawed on several layers. The first is the concept of 'privacy', you have it in your living room because you have a door and locks. You don't have any of that in an electronic mailbox. An electronic mailbox is like ones front porch, inherently a place with -public- access.
My arguement was that you can't expect free speech to have absolute protection. There are many rights that are on the same level with free speech, and if someone is going to use the free speech protection in order to violate someone elses right, you're greatly misunderstanding the purpose of free speech. You need to study where free speech came from and why. People ideas should not be blocked. No one objects to the speech or expression that spammers create. They can write all the spam they want. It's the *delivery* of that speech that we are objecting to. If they deliver it in a nasty way, that violates other rights, then that should be actionable. The first amendment doesn't say anything about the way in which you can deliver your speech. Go stand on a street corner for all I care, but don't enter my home and put it in my face.. that kind of act should not be protected. Your disagreement with this puts you in the minority.
We need more law.
No, we don't. All law will do is make life more complicated and reduce the concept of individual choice. What you propose is to let others decide and it is clear that they will decide based on their desires and wants and not yours.
Spammers have the choice to make whatever speech they want, and I don't intend to take that choice away from them. But I will take whatever actions necessary to ensure that they deliver it in a way that is not intrusive.
Example- I sue telemarketers on a regular basis using the tort law written in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This is practically a hobby for me now. I have won every case, and I've been well compensated for my troubles.
You just shot yourself in the foot and in the process demonstrated your lack of understanding of what a democracy is about.
<sigh> Democracy (and the USA) is dead.
This arguement boils down to an ad hominem, and it's empty with no intellectual content. Please explain what you mean here. Give us an academic argument with merit.