RE: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Craig [mailto:olc@cs.umass.edu]
...
> 
> 	Spam is cost-shifting. Transmission and storage costs are
> borne by the recipient and the ISPs; the latter pass the expense on to
> the former, so in essence we are all funding spammers by paying the
> internet bill.
> 
> > We can teach against it, but some people are just going to 
> do whatever
> > they please and we must respect their right to do so.
> 
> 	Bullshit. The flipside of a right to free speech is a right to
> not listen.
> 

Moreover, spamming is not an excercise of free-speech.  It is an
attempt at free advertising.  Basically, they are getting something
for nothing.  They are (generally) trying to sell something, and
not have to pay to advertise it.

The advertisers pay nothing to send thounsands of mails out.  (Except 
perhaps in the cases where they are stupid enough to hire one of the 
spamming services to send the mail for them.)  The freight is being 
paid by the internet subscribers in lost bandwidth, lost time wading
through the @*@#!@ in their inbox, and actual monetary costs for 
transmission & storage.

Spam is not a free speech issue, it is a free lunch issue.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!