A big fat one!

Thanks for this Mark. Interesting!

As much as I hate saying this, I think that they got this right.

I believe that this has become one of those areas where you have to pay the cost for living in a free society.
People died on the beaches of Normandy, and in the jungles of Vietnam, and now in the deserts of the Middle East to protect these freedoms.

We have to pay airport security guards to keep nut-jobs off of planes, and pay the brave Border Patrol to try to keep our borders secure.
I think that this blends in with applying a technology to keep email that I don't want to see, or that could harm my computer out of my inbox.

My two cents.

Very good point Jeff. I've never thought like that, however I believe your train of thought is slightly flawed in that although people have given their lives for a free society they have also given their lives for freedom of choice. I only want to receive mail, phone calls, sms and emails from people that I have given my express permission to use my email address, phone number, address to send stuff too.

The reason we use military, border patrols, spam software is because we are forced to as if we didn't people would force their crap on us which is certainly not why people fight for freedom of choice.

I agree with your premise.

The part that I get stuck on, and where I still agree with the court's decision, regards freedom of speech. If you DID allow a law to restrict what you were allowed to say in an email, and you DID allow a law that restricted who you could send an email to, and you DID allow a law that REQUIRED you to identify yourself when sending an email, this becomes a VERY slippery, and dangerous slope.

BTW, I am totally anti-government. EVERY law that is on the books costs YOU money. The fewer laws, the better. The smaller the government, the better.

Jeff and rockdj99uk,

Thanks for clarifying. Of course I find something in what you both say. I too am for no government (though I'm not a libertarian).

But - as we believe - just as 'they' may have a right to say what they want (and hence the law may have no right to stop them, certainly no right to monitor them), we have a right not to have to pay for it and receive it.

IOW this may be the closest we have got so far to opt-out. What C.A.N.S.P.A.M. thought we'd believe it was pretending to be: let the spammers produce it all they want. But we have an equally inalienable right to refuse it.

There's no freedom in shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Yeah, again I agree with the premise here.

But, how do you regulate this?

Issues...

There are some analogies that can be drawn between bulk mail, and bulk email, and cable TV commercials.
-- It is not "free" to receive a bulk mail. The simple act of disposing of it costs money. You also pay for your abode where the bulk mail is delivered.
-- It is not "free" to receive a bulk email. You pay for your internet service. You also pay for your computer.
-- (This one really gets me) It is not "free" to view commercials on cable TV. You have to pay for your cable TV, AND you have to watch commercials. Whaaaat?
How are you going to make it illegal to send bulk email, and NOT bulk mail, and NOT cable TV commercials?

Let's say that it is decided that we're going to make sending bulk email illegal.
-- How do you involve a government bureaucracy, with lawyers, to cobble together legislation that is focused enough to not run afoul of the constitutional judiciary, and wind up with legislation that makes it fairly easy to prove that a crime was committed?
-- What are you going to do with spam originating from infected Windows computers? Arrest the owner of the computer?
-- How do you prosecute Russian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc..., spammers?
-- What do you do with companies like Yahoo/Geocities? If you look on the hsc commonworkspace site, you'll see that they are responsible for the vast majority of email abuse related issues, both for allowing the distribution of bulk email, and hosting spamvertized URLs. Are you going to have them arrested for maintaining a public nuisance?

I would love to see this problem addressed, but it's got to be done in a focused, intelligent way, which eliminates the government as a possible source of a solution.

Not a crime to write it, plan it, edit it (spam). Not a crime to send it. Until…

…until one opts out of it - the model for junk fax and junk surface mail. Still a good model - although we all know it barely works.

At that point (I've told you I don't want it), regulate and prosecute the heck out of anyone sending it. Anywhere. Anyhow. Any time.

Another model is sexual harassment. Not usually a crime to fantasize, suggest, ask. But when she (or he) says No. You'd better not ask again, let alone pursue her/him!

Mark, I know how passionately you hate this quality of life blight. I do too.

I don't think that there are any easy answers for this ... I would offer a word of advice to anyone interested in legislating a solution for this problem ... keep it simple.

Thanks, Jeff :-)

I suspect we have masses in common. And we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude for all you've done to fight it over the years.

Couldn't agree more re simplicity. All power to you!