From: Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:00:58 +0800
To: mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)
Subject: Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
In-Reply-To: <v02140b03ae56d6064840@[205.162.51.35]>
Message-ID: <199609071337.JAA20307@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> > This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
> > has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> > even for no reason at all. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
> > AOL to allow the spammers access.
> 
> AOL has a service agreement with their customers, and they are not allowed
> to change the rules just because they feel like it (I believe that this
> is called a contract :)  This is the jist of the injunction.

I've never looked at the AOL terms of service. I imagine they are rewriting
them even as we speak. If enough people get pissed that the contract was
changed, they'll leave. I'm sure most folks won't give a damn. It may set a
bad precedent, but somehow I doubt AOL is going to start changing their
contract whenever it suits them simply to piss off customers. What they're
doing now, they're doing in order to remain on good terms with the rest of
the net.

"Spamming" is often a subjective term: Like "porn", we know it when we see
it. Which makes it crucial that people make up their own minds about it,
without gubmint interference. Some ISP's will tolerate spammers, others
won't. The ones that do will face an uphill battle, and possible eventual
Usenet Death Penalty if the spam is thick enough.

--
http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
why the dancing shouting   why the shrieks of pain  the lovely music  why the
smell of burning autumn leaves     working on the tiny blueprint of the angle
I must be silent must contain my secret smile  you my mirror you my iron bars