Spamming vs personal freedom

Posted by Jim Raymond on October 01, 1997 at 09:31:39:

Spamming is junk mail that cost the receipient and violates his/her personal freedom of choice. As such it should be restricted. Unlike the US Postal service and all the other information services covered by free speach, spamming requires the end user to spend time that he/she has paid for to deal with it. Unlike other information sources that either have the copmplete cost born by the originator (mail services) or allow the end user to select the desired info source, e-mail does not allow the user to choose his address to avoid spam. Spam is force feeding information regardless of the receipients wishes and is a violation of the receipients personal freedoms which are also guaranteed by the constitution. These freedoms are not overturned by by the amendments but rather enhanced by them. Free speach is not guaranteed to someone addressing a captive audience.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Spamming vs personal freedom jeremy penzien 11:22:19 12/01/97 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Spamming is junk mail that cost the receipient and violates his/her personal freedom of choice. As such it should be restricted. Unlike the US Postal service and all the other information services covered by free speach, spamming requires the end user to spend time that he/she has paid for to deal with it. Unlike other information sources that either have the copmplete cost born by the originator (mail services) or allow the end user to select the desired info source, e-mail does not allow the user to choose his address to avoid spam. Spam is force feeding information regardless of the receipients wishes and is a violation of the receipients personal freedoms which are also guaranteed by the constitution. These freedoms are not overturned by by the amendments but rather enhanced by them. Free speach is not guaranteed to someone addressing a captive audience.