[NCLUG] mmmmmmm...spam control
michaelc at cullerton.com
Tue Feb 19 14:25:45 MST 2002
--On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:40 PM -0700 bmc
<brettcrandall at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. I would never allow that. But, we are no longer in an age where
> we have "criers" on the street corner.
> And like it or not the internet, the web, etc and all of it components are
> covered under freedom of speech. And are effectively the 21st century
> version of "standing on the street" and sharing your views.
dude, i think you're wrong here. email is more likely gonna end up like
faxes, and unsolicited email will be illegal. many states have gone this
way already and it's gonna happen at the federal level as well, imho.
the 21st century version of the street crier is a web page, not spam.
> I'm not a proponent of Spam in any way shape or form but I am a proponent
> of the ideals that this country was founded on, and Spam, whether good
> bad or otherwise is a form of free speech.
there is a difference between stating your opinion, and forcing me to waste
resources while you compel me to hear your opinion. that is the point here.
sending unsolicited mass email wastes resources. resources that the spammer
does not pay for, the recipient does. that's why it's illegal.
> And if the Gov't were ever to
> try and take it away I would fight it tooth and nail. The reason being,
> if you let the Gov't take away parts of your freedoms, they will over
> time take more.
you already give up freedoms. by definition, that happens when you agree to
live in society. like, um, stoplights. it's a matter of which freedoms the
society is comfortable giving up.
-- mike cullerton michaelc at cullerton dot com
More information about the NCLUG