Spamming (Good or Bad?)

I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming
here? Is spamming free speech? 

- Vipul

Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com> writes:
>I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming
>here? Is spamming free speech? 

Your right to speak freely is protected in the US.  Your right to blare
simultaneously with a megaphone at every on-line crowd in the world is
not.  I know of no laws prohibiting your spamming, and I know of no laws
that would prevent someone from interfering with your spamming.  It's a
vigilante world... this year.

I oppose spamming because it's rude and inefficient, lowering the S/N
everywhere it happens.  Market droids favor it because it's cheap, and
no matter how many people they piss off bigtime, they make some sales.
People who oppose spam should do what they can to make it less
cost-effective... within legal limits, I suppose.

Perhaps the cypherpunk relevance is that next generation Usenet and
mailing lists could require the moderator's digital signature before
propagation happens... but I'd prefer to see an unexpected upwelling
of politeness.

	Jim Gillogly
	28 Wedmath S.R. 1996, 23:11

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:

> I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming
> here? Is spamming free speech? 

Yes.

So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually
picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse.

Ethically? We don't talk ethics much here, but I'd say it's highly unethical
to abuse a service paid for by the pooled resources of many. 

-rich