Ross Wright wrote:

You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white.

Crock of shit, Ross. It costs me money to download unwanted spam. What's this "free" bullshit?

You got a website? You post to usenet? I know you post to this list. By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as giving away your e-mail address. Maybe that's unethical, but it's a fact. And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages.

And if a woman wears short skirts, what kind of open invitation is that? Are banks who advertise that they handle money announcing an open invitation to the greedy?

Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right to intentionally harm.

Spammers neither know nor care if they are causing harm to the finances or mental well-being of others. If a spammer declares their right to cause me financial loss and denial of service for the time it takes me to rid myself of their unwanted intrusion then they can have no expectation that I, in turn, will not declare what level of financial loss and denial of service I will cause them.

You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at someone for something they say or some ad they send you.

So spammers have no right to lash out at my sending them a gigabyte of email regarding the evils of spamming.

...

It makes *me* feel better.

Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important that the Constitution?

Ross has failed to explain just how the Constitution promotes the spammer's right to intrude upon the spammer's life and cause them financial loss while denying that right to the spammee. Ross' personal feelings seem to be important enough to him to cast slurs on those who disagree with his black-and-white opinions regarding his right to spam others without them having a corresponding right to reply in kind. Gander. Goose. TruthMonger