Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?

[mindfuq at comcast.net]

* Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 17:00]:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq at 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.