From: Jason William RENNIE <jrennie@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 07:55:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The spam thread
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970624093724.9216A-100000@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Ooops,

looks like i started a raging debate. Sorry if this debate bores anybody 
but as was said to me, just delete it.

I notice nobody commented on the i just dont want advertising in my 
mailbox point, and why shouldn't they be billed. 

What i suggested WASN'T a new law that could be abused etc. It was a very 
minor legal precedent, where the owner of a phone or email box could be 
paid for advertising in in IF the marketer was informed. 

To Ross, SPAM may be freedom of expression as my child pornography, but 2 
things,

1. What about my rights to privacy, and my rights to my mailbox that I 
pay for. Why should it be used as an advertising medium if i font want it 
to be used for one ??

2. By your argument, mailbombing of all flavours is free expression and 
should be allowed. Seeing as this follows logically RU going to get upset 
if i mail bomb you ??

All this started when i asked if SPAM might be coming through this list, 
i didn't think it would have tyhis effect, but discussion is healthy.

Anyway shall we let this thread die at this point ??

Jason =8-]