Spam IS Free Speech

God, Last summer we had the whole "Spam as Free Speech Debate".  Now 
Rick Osborne drags it up again.  You can not retaliate against free 
speech, Rick.  That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white. 
Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish.

On or About 12 May 97 at 13:43, Rick Osborne wrote:

> I said:
> >I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence.  ;)
> 
> To which Vulis wrote:
> >Your lack of ethics, rather.  You choose to work for someone who
> >chooses to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish
> >these choices as an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech.
> 
> I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I
> should not have to walk through the street (get my email)

Well, you are doing OK so far.

> wearing 4
> inches of kevlar (using spam filters),

It depends on what street you are walking, here.  Kevelar *may* be in 
order.  What's your problem with your 'delete' key?  Broken?

> *just in case* someone
> decides to whip out a submachine gun (spam). 

Now, here's where you start to go really crazy.  Spam as a weapon?  
Please, Rick get ahold of yourself.  It's just e-mail.  Nothing scary 
or harmful, right?  Right?

> It should not me my
> job to defend myself from psychos, rather people should have to ask
> my permission to infringe upon my space and time.

You got a website?  You post to usenet?  I know you post to this 
list.  By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as 
giving away your e-mail address.  Maybe that's unethical, but it's a 
fact.  And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me 
to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages.
 
> How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just
> spamming him back? 

Free speech is a right.  You have the right to make some snotty 
reply, but no right to intentionally harm.  You are doing wrong if 
you try to harm someone who is exercising their right to free 
speech.  Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion 
you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you?  See, it's 
all the same thing.  You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at 
someone for something they say or some ad they send you.

> I sgree with this weekend's discussion on arp
> attacks: technically, they should be no different than spam attacks.
>  WHy then should he (or whoever) have the right to spam me without
> fear of retribution?

Because FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT WE HAVE!  Why all this talk of retribution?
No one has a right to retaliate, get it?  First Amendment?  I didn't 
read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did 
you?
  
> Actually, and this is just MHO, I don't really care if the 100 or so
> spams/arps I send them are but a mosquito's bite to them. 

Free Speech : Good      Mail Bombs : Bad

> It makes
> *me* feel better. 

Ahhh, at last the point.  Are you a self centred ass, who's personal 
feelings are more important that the Constitution?  Feel better?  How 
about when those black suited ninjas break into your house to steal 
your rights?  That's my metaphor of what you are doing to people who 
spam you...

> I'm not in this necessarily to shut anyone down
> (though it would be a nice side-effect), just to annoy them as much
> as they annoy me. Like I said, I'm more of the passive-agressive
> type, so I'm not here to wage a war, just a few small skirmishes.

It's talk like this that those good old boys in D.C. love.  Bad 
internet, bad.

Um, there is no war against spammers.  Did you know that?  You could 
be doing so much more with your time.  Please reconsider.  Thank you.

No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws".  
Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best.  I'm more 
worried about this anti bomb making recipe law that the government is 
yammering about now. 

Ross

=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: (408) 259-2795

Ross Wright wrote:

>You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick.  That's a bad
>thing, plain and simple, black and white.

I have a qoute in my sig database attributed to Woody Allen that says "I
think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down
and meet them with baseball bats.", when talking about the KKK.  As much as
I can't stand the man, I actually agree with him on this.  I've got only a
minor problem with Sanford sending spam (it being unsolicited and all), I'm
just saying that I should not be denied the right to spam him right back.

>Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish.

The US Gov't is harsh and cartoonish (look at GAK), what's your point?

>It depends on what street you are walking, here.  Kevelar *may*
>be in order.

That's true.  I misspoke myself.  Obviously, I'm not going to run through
the streets of CUba screaming "I'm a wealthy high-ranking American", but at
the same time, I'm not going to be walking through Cuba anytime soon,
either.  Do you see my point?  It's all in whether or not it's *solicited*.
 Simply having an email address, to me, is *not* an invitation for everyone
in the world to send me mail to it.

>What's your problem with your 'delete' key?

Nothing.  Like I said: I've got filters.  I'm just saying that I shouldn't
have to use them (in a perfect world), as all "spam" I get should be
solicited.

>Now, here's where you start to go really crazy.  Spam as a weapon?  

Actually, I was just going with the kevlar thing.  Spam, in my view, isn't
necessarily a weapon, but to me it's just as unwanted and unsolicited as a
stray bullet.  If I feel like asking for someone to shoot me, I'll suit up
first, but until then I don't really appreciate the pot shots.

>By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as 
>giving away your e-mail address [...] it's an open invitation for
>me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages.

Nope, you're getting confused here.  Giving my email address is akin to the
*white* pages, while asking for spam is the *yellow* pages.  If I were to
put my phone number in the white pages of the local phone book (which I
don't), it would be so that someone who has a *need* to contact me could.
If I wanted people calling me for no reason, I'd put an ad in the yellow
pages.  See what I'm saying?

>You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right
>to intentionally harm.

Aha!  There's the rub!  If I'm paying for my connect time, then spam *is*
harmful.

>Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion 
>you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you?

Did what?  Set up a robot to flame me?  I'd hope they at least had the guts
to not do it anonymously, but I can't fault them for not liking me.

>You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at 
>someone for something they say or some ad they send you.

So why then do I not have the right to lash out at them in return?

>No one has a right to retaliate, get it?  First Amendment?  I didn't 
>read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did 
>you?

So you're saying that if I came along and dropped a few billion pamphlets
for a campaign of mine on your house.  In addition to having to pay to get
them cleaned up, you also had to pay for the structural damage my leaflets
caused.  However, since I didn't *intentionally* cause the problems, I am
in the clear?  Give me a break.

>Free Speech : Good      Mail Bombs : Bad

Spam = Mail Bomb = Arp attack.  No essential difference.  Why isn't a mail
bomb or arp attack proctected by your idealized free speech?

>Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important
>that the Constitution?

Yes, I am a self-centered ass.  No, my feelings are not more important than
the Constitution, my feelings help *make* the Constitution, remember?  It's
moot, anyway, as I'm not advocating removing free speech.

>You could be doing so much more with your time.

True.  And I could be doing *more* with my time if I didn't have to spend
it setting up spam filters!

>No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws".

I agree.  I'm not asking for any laws, just the right to annoy spammers
just as much as they annoy me.  Why can't I do that?  If I decide to spam
them, not our of retribution, but as an exercise of my right to free
speech, then how is it any different?

>Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best.

You're more optimistic than I.  It must be nice to not be cynical.


_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
"They're probably foriegners with ways different than our own. They may
do some more..... folk dancing."