Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com> writes:

I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming here? Is spamming free speech?

Your right to speak freely is protected in the US. Your right to blare simultaneously with a megaphone at every on-line crowd in the world is not. I know of no laws prohibiting your spamming, and I know of no laws that would prevent someone from interfering with your spamming. It's a vigilante world... this year. I oppose spamming because it's rude and inefficient, lowering the S/N everywhere it happens. Market droids favor it because it's cheap, and no matter how many people they piss off bigtime, they make some sales. People who oppose spam should do what they can to make it less cost-effective... within legal limits, I suppose. Perhaps the cypherpunk relevance is that next generation Usenet and mailing lists could require the moderator's digital signature before propagation happens... but I'd prefer to see an unexpected upwelling of politeness. Jim Gillogly 28 Wedmath S.R. 1996, 23:11