on 5/30/02 12:27 PM, B0b Jay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ok, I may not be very good at writing..... > But this junk e-mail thing is NOT about content, its about CONSENT > S630 seeks to outlaw fraud and thats a good thing, but it does NOT > address the real problem here and that is the unsolicited nature of the > email advertising. If the law prohibits e-mail advertising that contains > fraud, > fine - then all of the "legit" businesses that want to advertise by e-mail > "legally" then as much as have permission from the legislature to spam all > they want. This is VERY BAD LAW! Junk EMail just like junk fax should be > outright prohibited and have done with it. > Also, have you read the Congressional Findings? Its self contridictory and > thereby is open to being struck down by the courts. Like I said before VERY > BAD LAW!
I think my issue was less with your writing than with your argument. It may well be true that it's a bad law, but unless you give people - including those who are voting on the bill - an explanation of why you don't like it, and what can be done to change it, you're just not going to get very far. What's wrong with the findings? I missed something contradictory and don't see how it would be struck down on that point... In any event, after looking at the bill, I don't know that I'd agree it's 'very bad' - I personally think the criminal provisions against fraudulent headers and the assorted civil penalties would be helpful in combating the most outrageous cases of spam. And, personally at least, that's where the bulk of my complaints exist - I get virtually no "legitimate spam," i.e. UCE from a real business advertising a real and legal product. There seems to be ample incentive for prosecutors to pursue violations and I think it would help. So where does the proposal fall down? As you point out, it does nothing to stop honest UCE. That's a problem...if everybody gets a shot at my mailbox, I and my ISP are going to have real problems. As I mentioned, that's not really a problem right now - but that situation could change with passage if the bill. If advertisers were not as worried their pitch would end up next to obscene pictures in your mailbox, they might be more likely to engage in UCE. My suggestion would be to write your Senator and ask them to change the law so that 'opt out' mailings are prohibited. The argument against doing that is imposing a limitation on free speech - although the precedent established with unsolicited faxes should carry the day. As with faxes, UCE shifts costs to the recipient. Good Luck, Dale _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
