[NCLUG] mmmmmmm...spam control

[bmc]

Very well stated Matthew. However this entire thread was not intended to be
a debate. So this is my last e-mail on the subject.



> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:40:51PM -0700, bmc wrote:
> > I agree. I would never allow that. But, we are no longer in an age where
we
> > have "criers" on the street corner.
>
> I'm not talking about Town Criers.  I'm talking about, say, the
evangelists
> who stand in public places and preach their religion.  That's the kind
> of freedom of speech your precious constitution was meant to protect.
My precious constitution? Are you not an American citizen?

> > 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.
>
> Uhm.  By definition, "The Internet" crosses county, state, national
> and jurisdictional boundaries.

I'm not a frigging dictionary . Pure semantics and a weak argument.

 Freedom of speech is not a universally
> accepted right, much like the USA does not accept a universal right to
> safe, nutritious food.  The jurisdictions which do recognise freedom
> of speech mostly do not categorise someone running up to you with a
> megaphone, following you around all day and night offering to sell you
> h0t t33n 4c+i0n, penis size improving drugs and $33 million if you'll
> only deposit $100 in their bank accountas `freedom of speech'.

Not my point at all becuse besides the fact that you have to press an extra
key on your keyboard this e-mail truely does you no phyisical harm nor does
it accost you in the street.
It is exactly freedom of speech that even allow that type of mail to be
circulated at all. Ever been to country where there is no freedom of speech?
That e-mail could get you killed in some countries.


> Hell, even the Colorado legislature ruled that spam must be identified
> as such.  "But that infringes on my freedom of speech!  I should be
> able to send spam without labelling it if i want to" is a lovely piece
> of rhetoric but utterly fails to make sense.

Exactly my point. The Gov't will step in and take action and not
necessarilly the best course. They are, after all,  human.

> > 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. 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.

> Then why are you not on the streets protesting the well-known, documented
> violations of the Bill of Rights that your government has been practicing
> for the last 40 years or more?

Mainly becuse I have to feed and clothe myself which means I have to work.
And in this country we have a littel thing called "elected officals" to help
in matters of this magnatude.
However, this is an unfair and open ended question designed to humilate and
embarrass me so until you have a solution to the problem maybe you shouldn't
be questioning my work or lack thereof on the rights of american citizens.
> --
> Revolutions do not require corporate support.
> _______________________________________________
> NCLUG mailing list
> NCLUG at nclug.org
> http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug
>