murr rhame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 4 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote: >> California is absolutely idiotic in that regard [pamphleting rights]. >> Most other states have more sense. > A couple of cities where I've lived had laws against placing flyers on > car windshields. It's called littering. The feds get upset if anyone > except the postman delivers stuff to an official snail mail box. Then > there are also federal limits on pamphleting at abortion clinics and > such. You can't blockade a building while handing out pamphlets. I was actually talking about private property rights and the fact that supermarkets and the like can't kick panhandlers off their property and instead put up little signs saying that the law doesn't allow them to do so. It means that there are people frequently loitering about in some locations, making some stores significantly more dangerous to, say, women alone when shopping after dark. I think it's complete nonsense. People who aren't shopping at the store have no business being on the store's property, and the store should be able to call the police and have them escorted off the premises. I'm not sure on the law about pamphleting around here; I agree that it is and should be considered by the law to be littering. (This is all horribly off-topic... I guess the only real relevance is that while private property rights I think is still the most cogent argument against spamming, it is -- all too unfortunately -- not particularly uncommon for governments to decide that private property owners have to provide various services to people they don't want to provide for no good reasons whatsoever. Lets hope they don't do the same thing with spam.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
