Yep, this is why those opposed to spam tend to start speaking of fine distinctions, such as that between unsolicited commercial email (UCE) and non-commercial.
Glenn's on the right track. The difference between ranting and raving in front of the NY Public Library demanding the release of Dmitry Sklyarov, and doing something similar by email, is quantitative, not qualitative. I think some of the people most virulently opposed to spam, especially prior to the clear establishment that the online medium is in fact a public forum, are those afraid of the political prospects of the medium. Seth Johnson Glenn McGrath wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:54:49 -0800 > "Josh" <josh at mercuryfs.net> wrote: > > > Is spam free speech? > > > > I think everybody wants to answer NO, but i think it is free speech. > > Just because people dont like the message or the person who sent it > doesnt mean the message should be illegal. > > Most people arent capable of thinking rationally about the topic because > of their outright hatred... its weird. > > If spammers send mail about scams then they should be dealt with like > any other scam artist. > > If spammers are selling legit goods then i dont see how its any > different than any other form of advertising.. e.g. I dont ask to see > adds on TV/radio/newspaper, but i dont consider the adds to be spam. > > (Anyone who compares spamers to NAZI's is seriously deranged, do > spammers attempt genocide or anything close ?) > > Glenn > > _______________________________________________ > Chat mailing list > Chat at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
