From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:03:52 +0800
To: HipCrime <robert@precipice.v-site.net>
Subject: Re: mailing lists
In-Reply-To: <3238648F.207@precipice.v-site.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960912175054.4035C-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, HipCrime wrote:

> >i don't see you sticking your neck out to deal with assholes who think
> >freedom of speech is secondary to their right not to ever see mail
> >they don't want. 
> 
> Like hell we're not.  What are you guys mad at us for?  Thinking that
> FREEDOM of SPEECH is much, much more important that whining computer
> nerds who can't push a DELETE button.
> 

Freedom of speech is a poor excuse for junk email. There are few absolute
freedoms in any society, and those that exercise their "freedom" to the
point of abusing their fellows are those who cause such freedoms to become
more restricted. I'm personally against needing to pay the social costs of
more and more laws because someone is trying to make a buck any way he
can, regardless of the costs and annoyances to others.

Hitting the DELETE key once in a while is not the problem. Inequitable 
division of the costs is a problem. The aggravation of seeing something 
good being slowly eroded is a problem. People who feel that they have 
"rights" and "freedoms" with no concept of the social responsibility that 
creates and protects such intangibles are a problem.

> Well, "doctor" why can't you see (with your logic) that junk Email (or
> "spam") would save many, many forests if it REPLACED junk SnailMail.
> 

And how much could be saved if we did away with both? Could we end world 
hunger if spammers were converted to soylent green?


> Isn't it just that your "irrelevant feelings" have been hurt, because
> someone used your remailer-baby in a way you hadn't planned for ?!?
> 
> Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount),
> that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000.  Particularly,
> when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved.  It'll be
> a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion.  Want to bet?
> 

Telemarketing (even at at dinner time) is widespread. So is junk snail-mail. 
How socialy acceptable these behaviors are is debatable.

Junk faxing was a blessedly short term fad, one that had to be legislated 
away.

I'm completely in favor of allowing junk email, as long as "JUNK MAIL" is 
required to be the first thing on the subject line. PLONK!   ... but that 
will take yet another law ... 

- r.w.