1996-09-09 - Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks

Header Data

From: Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
To: declan@eff.org (Declan McCullagh)
Message Hash: d96fb9a6fc94e36e5f652d15d714573fd14b1e80b190fb71d94b0186a6ce3963
Message ID: <199609082348.TAA04495@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960908123138.821J-100000@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-09 02:52:44 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:52:44 +0800

Raw message

From: Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:52:44 +0800
To: declan@eff.org (Declan McCullagh)
Subject: Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960908123138.821J-100000@eff.org>
Message-ID: <199609082348.TAA04495@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

> The judge did mention "status quo" in his opinion. I would hope that 
> "status quo" would mean the ability of ISPs to offer and enforce whatever 
> contracts they want -- including banning incoming spam -- without the 
> intervention of the government. Unless, of course, the ISP breaks the 
> contract, but in that case the plaintiffs should be the customers, not 
> the spammer.

Aren't spammers customers, by definition? If so, they have just as much
right to bring suit as any other customer. Less moral justification, yes,
but an equal standing in the law's eyes.

I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and
people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene /
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as
grass.   .oOo.    [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation]