Things got pretty twisted there in your response- let me unravel this: * Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 18:04]:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Please explain.
Read Zamyatin's "We".
This is a cop out. Speak for yourself. For all we know, you didn't read this book. Even if the book says it better than you could, explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy. If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight- one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall, good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
That's no good either.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
No one has this right. There is no inherent right to put stuff on someones front porch. And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing. I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail. If they do have such a right, then if anything it makes it even more necessary to have tort laws against spam.
If he's tresspassing in order to put obsticles
Sorry, your front porch isn't considerd 'trespassable' unless -you- take explicit and particular steps.
Exactly, and because I can take steps to make it clear that such an act is trespassing, you do not have an inherent *right* to put stuff on my porch.
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.
Then you must put up a sign, does your mailbox have such a sign?
It doesn't, mainly because this isn't a problem.
In fact your position backs up mine that the current trespass and harassment laws are sufficient to handle this problem.
That's complete bullshit. Trespass and harassment laws are insufficient. The point I was making with trespassing is that because of trespassing law, you do not have a right to put things on my porch. Whether this law is effective is quite a different thing. If I go to the police station and say that someone is putting stuff on my front porch even though I have all the proper notices posted, I will get laughed out of the police station. It's illegal and enforceable, but that doesn't mean it will be enforced. A very similar thing happened to me when I first started taking actions against telemarketers. I went to my local white collar crimes unit to file a report against a telemarketer. I had proof as to who done it, what they did, and what laws were broken. This was criminal activity I was there to report, and they wouldn't even make a report. Because the laws are broken so regularly, the police dept. is only going to enforce the repeat offenders. IOW, when I get three calls from the same telemaketer, only then will they write a report. And even then, there's nothing to motivate them to act on the report. So the mere presence of a law doesn't mean you rest assured that it will do anything. Tort law, on the other hand, is effective. I'm suing telemarketers left and right, because I am empowered to take action. So no, my position does not back up yours. My position is that we need tort law, because trespassing law does not work. I know that if I post an appropriate use statement for my email box, and I get spammed anyway, I will get laughed out of the police station for trying to press trespassing charges.
In other words, you shot yourself in your own foot with regard to 'new' law. We don't need it. What we need is the courts to recognize that if we tell somebody to stay away and they don't then an actionable event has taken place.
We do need it, because I still get spam. The laws in place aren't working. I need tort law, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.
So, we actually agree but you don't see it, yet.
Not even close. Until you support tort law, we will not agree on this. Ultimately, you could say my objective is to ask for more RIGHTS, not RESTRICTIONS. But rights also come in the form of law. I'm not asking for more restrictions on email. I'm just asking for the *right* to sue someone who sends spam. Spam is damaging, and costly. Let them send it (that way they can't complain about loss of free speech), but I should have a right to seek compensation. $500 per email. That's all I want.