From: Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 03:14:19 +0800
To: "Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>
Subject: Re: Spam IS Free Speech
In-Reply-To: <199705140604.XAA01787@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970514145756.009ae140@gateway.grumman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ross Wright wrote:

>You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick.  That's a bad
>thing, plain and simple, black and white.

I have a qoute in my sig database attributed to Woody Allen that says "I
think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down
and meet them with baseball bats.", when talking about the KKK.  As much as
I can't stand the man, I actually agree with him on this.  I've got only a
minor problem with Sanford sending spam (it being unsolicited and all), I'm
just saying that I should not be denied the right to spam him right back.

>Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish.

The US Gov't is harsh and cartoonish (look at GAK), what's your point?

>It depends on what street you are walking, here.  Kevelar *may*
>be in order.

That's true.  I misspoke myself.  Obviously, I'm not going to run through
the streets of CUba screaming "I'm a wealthy high-ranking American", but at
the same time, I'm not going to be walking through Cuba anytime soon,
either.  Do you see my point?  It's all in whether or not it's *solicited*.
 Simply having an email address, to me, is *not* an invitation for everyone
in the world to send me mail to it.

>What's your problem with your 'delete' key?

Nothing.  Like I said: I've got filters.  I'm just saying that I shouldn't
have to use them (in a perfect world), as all "spam" I get should be
solicited.

>Now, here's where you start to go really crazy.  Spam as a weapon?  

Actually, I was just going with the kevlar thing.  Spam, in my view, isn't
necessarily a weapon, but to me it's just as unwanted and unsolicited as a
stray bullet.  If I feel like asking for someone to shoot me, I'll suit up
first, but until then I don't really appreciate the pot shots.

>By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as 
>giving away your e-mail address [...] it's an open invitation for
>me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages.

Nope, you're getting confused here.  Giving my email address is akin to the
*white* pages, while asking for spam is the *yellow* pages.  If I were to
put my phone number in the white pages of the local phone book (which I
don't), it would be so that someone who has a *need* to contact me could.
If I wanted people calling me for no reason, I'd put an ad in the yellow
pages.  See what I'm saying?

>You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right
>to intentionally harm.

Aha!  There's the rub!  If I'm paying for my connect time, then spam *is*
harmful.

>Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion 
>you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you?

Did what?  Set up a robot to flame me?  I'd hope they at least had the guts
to not do it anonymously, but I can't fault them for not liking me.

>You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at 
>someone for something they say or some ad they send you.

So why then do I not have the right to lash out at them in return?

>No one has a right to retaliate, get it?  First Amendment?  I didn't 
>read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did 
>you?

So you're saying that if I came along and dropped a few billion pamphlets
for a campaign of mine on your house.  In addition to having to pay to get
them cleaned up, you also had to pay for the structural damage my leaflets
caused.  However, since I didn't *intentionally* cause the problems, I am
in the clear?  Give me a break.

>Free Speech : Good      Mail Bombs : Bad

Spam = Mail Bomb = Arp attack.  No essential difference.  Why isn't a mail
bomb or arp attack proctected by your idealized free speech?

>Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important
>that the Constitution?

Yes, I am a self-centered ass.  No, my feelings are not more important than
the Constitution, my feelings help *make* the Constitution, remember?  It's
moot, anyway, as I'm not advocating removing free speech.

>You could be doing so much more with your time.

True.  And I could be doing *more* with my time if I didn't have to spend
it setting up spam filters!

>No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws".

I agree.  I'm not asking for any laws, just the right to annoy spammers
just as much as they annoy me.  Why can't I do that?  If I decide to spam
them, not our of retribution, but as an exercise of my right to free
speech, then how is it any different?

>Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best.

You're more optimistic than I.  It must be nice to not be cynical.


_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
"They're probably foriegners with ways different than our own. They may
do some more..... folk dancing."