I'm asking for more rights, not restrictions (was Re: Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?)

mindfuq at comcast.net mindfuq at comcast.net
Sat Aug 2 20:35:07 PDT 2003


Things got pretty twisted there in your response- let me unravel this:

* Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 18:04]:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq at 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.





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list