[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:19 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
> 
> 
> 
> --- Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, advertising IS a form of speech. The real problem is 
> when they forge
> headers or any of the other dirty tricks spammers use. I call 
> this false
> advertising or even fraud. This is a categrory of speech that 
> isn't protected
> and can be regulated. Ultimately deceptive trade practices 
> are an attempt to
> steal.
> 
> 

Advertising is a form of speech, correct.  But typically the
advertisers have to pay for their ads.  Even if 3rd class
(junkmail) postage is cheap, it still is a small cost.  TV
and radio cost.  Billboards cost.  Email?  No cost ... to the
advertisers.  The cost is to the recipients (some people still
pay for all the bandwidth they use, so every junk email sent to
them incurrs a small but real monetary cost) and the ISPs
carrying all the junk.



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

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