 
stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA |  Interesting
| |
|
 | 
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Re: Interesting said by stevek1949  :I reported this to BBR yesterday as the news was breaking via their on-site form. Guess I was too early! Seems they have been a bit slow on the uptake as of late. Particularity on the weekends... 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  | |
|
| | TheKnossos
join:2003-05-14
Fort Worth, TX
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Interesting said by Mactron :said by stevek1949 :I reported this to BBR yesterday as the news was breaking via their on-site form. Guess I was too early! Seems they have been a bit slow on the uptake as of late. Particularity on the weekends... Maybe they're being spammed? | |
|
| | |
| 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | Ah, so this is about you, and not about spam? | |
|
| |
stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Interesting said by Steve :Ah, so this is about you, and not about spam? Nope, not me. If I wasn't interested in it I wouldn't have reported it as soon as the news was announced. Now I am wondering if reporting "news" is even beneficial to readers like you. | |
|
| | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | Re: Interesting News itself is quite beneficial.
Making it about yourself, not so much. | |
|
| | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | Interesting I think he made a good point, in a good venue; as long as it was limited to a brief mention.
Which it was, until you took up the mantle and made it a critique piece.
NV | |
|
| 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I submit news items that don't pass muster all the time. If it's interesting they get to it when they can get to it and if someone submitted it before you they get the credit. | |
|
| | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: Interesting said by Dogfather :I submit news items that don't pass muster all the time. In other words, spam? | |
|
| | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | Re: Interesting said by quatrix :In other words, spam? Oh no, not at all: just because it's interesting to you but not to the site's general readership (in the opinion of the editors) doesn't make it spam.
But public posting "But I submitted this first!" is in the same juvenile, attention-seeking category as "FIRST POST"
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site | |
|
| | | |
| 
iGuru
@publicvpn.net | Article in NYT says different. He appealed not on basis of free speech but because anti-spam law in Virginia was flawed | |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" should have been the headline if you were intellectually consistent.
When it comes to the 4th amendment you are hard, hard over on "the courts MUST approve ANY police or national security investigation -- MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY trumps ALL criminal or terrorist investigation activity".
Now, when it's the 1st amendment vs SPAM, suddenly you don't think the Consitution is so important.
Hypocrites. You just have an agenda and you will cover yourself in whatever argument suits your purpose. | |
|
| 
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. | |
|
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by MrMoody :Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. You're simply making my point for me. You have an agenda and you will interpret the Constitution as it upholds your agenda. If you were consistent you'd be happy anytime the courts knock down the prosecution on Consitutional grounds.
I don't ever want to hear you say "The Constitution is being trampled!" again because you are trampling it right now with your anti-free-speech statement. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by JSY :Since when is free speech protected if it can harm others? ... So I take it you DISAGREE with the Court's decision that at least some spam is Constitutionally protected free speech?
I am simply pointing out that this site applies Constitutional arguments selectively as it suits their agenda -- and that pretending that you are defending the Constitution against the oncoming police state via the courts on "warrantless wiretapping" is hypocritical unless you AGREE with this Court decision. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" All spam harms others as it consumes resources and costs them money. | |
|
| | | | | | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| If they want to pay the server costs for me to run a mailserver, I will gladly let them send their crap to me.
However, this is not freedom of speech, because this is not free, it is infringing upon someone else and costing them. The right of your speech ends when it infringes upon mine. It is not all-or-nothing.
You can think the Constitution is misinterpreted all you like, clearly you have an opinion and want to push it on others, while being inconsistent and idealistic yourself.
No surprise.
--
Moore/Alexander 2008
Conservatives love religious-like aphorisms so here's one: "Freedom isn't free. It's Made in China." | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
1 edit | Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" Your analogy is well off from the point I was making. Really, really out there. I pay for a mailserver, yet I pay more because of some idiot trying to advertise to me. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of times over.
If you're going to try to make an analogy for me to defend, how about a relevant one, like dumping advertisement or vote-for-Nader signs in my back yard so I have to pay more in garbage fees to get rid of or store them. | |
|
| | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | No, they are applying common sense, while you're bashing the site and the posters. I think you're just advancing your agenda. | |
|
| | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by KrK :No, they are applying common sense, while you're bashing the site and the posters. I think you're just advancing your agenda. OK KrK, I don't want to EVER see another post from you talking about the Bush administration "trampling the Constitution" as you are wont to do. The new criterion is apparently "common sense" according to you. Not Constitutional law.
And, no bashing here... just making a point about inconsistency in thinking. I hoped to actually make some people think about their positions. It doesn't work with everyone. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by KrK :Wasting people's time and money with UCE and SPAM is not a right. Free speech is a right. My entire point is as follows. Please try to stick with me here.
1) The court disagrees with you on this issue, citing the Constitution. You say "they are wrong about the Constitution."
2) On "warrantless wiretapping", the court agreed with you, citing the Constitution. You say "they are right about the Constitution."
3) Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you say "you are wrong... in case 1 no laws were broken, in case 2 laws were broken, and the Constitution says so."
4) This is an inconsistent position at best, or a hypocritical one at worst. You are simply reciting your OPINION about what's Constitutional or not. And you want to have it both ways... when the courts agree with you, they are right, and when they disagree with you, they are wrong.
My conclusion is that you need to stop using the Constitution to pound away at people you disagree with, and start saying "In my OPINION...". | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" How does the constitution 1st ammendment have anything to do with private property? The constitution only has to do with the Government. We're not talking about government property here, we're talking about private property.
You cannot, for instance, go into a Wal-Mart and say stuff Wal-Mart finds objectionable. They can and will ask you to leave their property. And if you don't want to, you don't get to cite 1st ammendment to stop the police from hauling you off for tresspassing or other charges.
Also, SPAM is usually commercial speech, trying to sell something. That has clear case law restricting it (No TV ads for Cigarettes for instance). I think this WILL be overturned on appeal, as it's clearly pretty far out there compared to other similar cases (See telemarketing, the above TV ads).
I think this will clearly come down as NOT being a free speech issue, unless the courts want to open challanges to the rules on a broad swath of similar issues.
--
Opera 9.51(Build 10081); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Nope.
You're incorrect. That's not what I say, nor is it inconsistent in anyway. | |
|
| | | | | 
callipygian2
join:2001-01-30
Albuquerque, NM
| IMO the spam itself (no matter the subject) is protected by the Constitution. However, there is a problem with the delivery.
A person standing at an intersection yelling about abortion doesn't cost anyone anything.
Someone sending out 10 million emails with the same speech costs people money. | |
|
| | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by callipygian2 :IMO the spam itself (no matter the subject) is protected by the Constitution. However, there is a problem with the delivery. A person standing at an intersection yelling about abortion doesn't cost anyone anything. Someone sending out 10 million emails with the same speech costs people money. Oh I didn't realize the First Amendment said "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... UNLESS IT COSTS PEOPLE MONEY." Thanks for educating me. | |
|
| | | | | | | joeabb65
Premium
join:2008-06-17
Malden, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. One could argue that a breach of the peace and cause violnece aspect could be linked to spam and impact it has on the receiver of that spam. | |
|
| | | | | | |
callipygian2
join:2001-01-30
Albuquerque, NM | He didn't lose his freedom of speech. He was free to compose his email anyway he wanted. But when he sends it anywhere, it is no longer just a free speech matter.
If you can't understand that, then you are incapable of logical thought. | |
|
| | | | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by callipygian2 :He didn't lose his freedom of speech. He was free to compose his email anyway he wanted. But when he sends it anywhere, it is no longer just a free speech matter. If you can't understand that, then you are incapable of logical thought. This is possibly the stupidest response to my posts I have ever seen here.
First: I never in this entire thread expressed an opinion one way or the other on spam vs. free speech. You are attacking me for something I never said.
Second: The unanimous opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court is just a bit longer than your three sentences, and it disagrees with you. Maybe you should tell them they are "incapable of logical thought".
When the courts agree with you, they are defending the Constitution. When they disagree with you, they are idiots or stooges. You can't have it both ways. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | The "You can't scream FIRE in a movie theater" argument is to prevent injury or death. I don't know of any spam that could cause injury or death. Please try again with another analogy. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA | How about this one. I park my car in front of your house and blast advertising at your house through a loud speaker 24/7. | |
|
| | | | | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" That's even worse that the Fire analogy. | |
|
| | wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO | or extend to any form that could cost me money, or invade my privacy. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| spammers cause unneeded stress on Corporate and ISP networks with their garbage. spam has caused major effects on bandwidth in the global email system and spammers tend to use bots placed on people's computers to act as spam zombies and raise their spam potential(which violates computer crimes laws).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| 
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | said by MyDogHsFleas :Now, when it's the 1st amendment vs SPAM, suddenly you don't think the Consitution is so important. Wrong, because free speech does not cover spam in the sense that someone going door to door or speaking on the corner of two streets does. In those two cases there isn't any cost associated with the exercise of their free speech, however, in the case of spam their is a cost - the cost of my bandwidth, my disk space on the server and the client, etc. In other words, the exercise of their freedom of speech (the spammers) impinges on my rights and property. It would be akin to a person coming in through your front door, taking out a staple gun and posting advertisements on your walls, ceiling or floor.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| 
UnKown
The Underground Network
join:2002-09-08
Orlando, FL | i dont necissarily agree with spam, but a 9 year prison sentence is a little bit harsh. They are quick to lock you up in virginia. | |
|
| 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| I think you could have made your point without being insulting to everyone.
The law was poorly written. It violated the constitition so it got struck down as it should have.
You can throw all the free newspapers you want on my front lawn, but if you open my mailbox and put it in, you will be guilty of a federal crime. They should have taken a different approach at stopping spam. What they did in the end was waste a lot of tax payer money on a poorly written law. | |
|
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by dnoyeB :I think you could have made your point without being insulting to everyone. Sorry if you felt insulted, that was not my intent. My intent was to make you think about intellectual consistency. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | ok once the other ISPs follow Comcast with bandwidth limits can we send these spammers a bill?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| If you knew a little more about laws surrounding free speech, you would know that not all speech is protected as free speech.
For starters, there's the famous "you can't falsely scream fire in a movie theater" bit. And then there are other things... Going into the middle of a public mall on a Saturday morning and screaming obscenities at the top of your lungs would not be protected (if you doubt me, I suggest you try it and report back here what happens when you tell the police that you have such a right).
Business related speech is yet another category that can be (and is) regulated. Just like junk faxes are illegal, spam should be illegal. It costs internet providers money for bandwidth-- money to send the mail, money to receive the mail. It costs ISPs money to store the mail on their servers. And then it costs money to send the mail to ISP customers in bandwidth use. And let's not forget the customers, who are forced to use bandwidth to download the mail, and waste computer cycles to process the mail... and potentially waste disk space to store the mail. Spam costs money-- it is not free to the recipients. And as such, it should be classified with junk faxes and not be permitted to be sent unless specifically asked for by a person.
--
Don't hope for a better life-- vote for one.
John McCain for president | |
|
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted" said by NOVA_Guy :If you knew a little more about laws surrounding free speech, you would know that not all speech is protected as free speech. ...snip... Don't lecture me. I'm not an idiot. I know about free speech -- and by the way it's not "laws", it's the First Amendment and its various interpretations by the courts.
You, like almost every other poster on this topic, completely misses my point. I have tried to say it six ways from Sunday.
Let me try ONE... MORE.... TIME. Then I'm out. Try listening this time.
When the Courts strike down the Executive or Legislative branch on Constitutional grounds, and it's an issue where you are AGAINST the Government's position, you are all cheering and wrapping yourselves up in the Constitution and declaring anyone on the other side is "trampling the Constitution" and "breaking laws". For example... the recent debates on "warrantless wiretapping" and "retroactive immunity" (which by the way are completely polarizing phrases that assume a conclusion).
Now, one comes up where the Courts take a Constitutional stand and you are FOR the government's position... suddenly it's all "Those idiots! It's OBVIOUS that the First Amendment doesn't apply! The spammers are LAWBREAKERS and TRAMPLING ON MY RIGHTS!"
All I am saying is either (a) be consistent and uphold the Courts when they interpret the Constitution (which is, after all, their Constitutional role) or (b) stop pretending that you are a Constitutionalist and admit that your positions are just YOUR OPINION. | |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  It didn't give a right to send COMMERCIAL spam
The Va law got in trouble because it banned ALL spamming and not just commercial spam. If they had stuck to the same rules as the Can Spam act and other acts, the guy would have been convicted as the judge said.
He also would have been guilty under Can Spam, except he committed his offenses BEFORE those laws were passed.
Justice G. Steven Agee, who has since moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote the unanimous opinion for the court. "The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is 'an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,' " Agee wrote, citing a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case.
The court determined that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail or to such unprotected speech as obscenity or defamation. Many other states and the federal government drafted anti-spam laws after Virginia, but often specifically restricted the regulations to commercial e-mails, the court found. The ruling affects only the Virginia statute. So, I guess I can still send out thousands of unsolicited emails(as long as I don't forge my email addr) calling Obama a disaster for the US and that McCain can save the world and not break the law
But I could then lose my broadband account because sending mass emails is against my TOS.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: It didn't gave a right to send COMMERCIAL spam said by GOLFnSUN :If you are spamming a political viewpoint; a religious viewpoint; or your just plain old own nutty ideas it is protected as ruled. The Va law got in trouble because it banned ALL spamming and not just commercial spam. If they had stuck to the same rules as the Can Spam act and other acts, the guy would have been convicted as the judge said. He also would have been guilty under Can Spam, except he committed his offenses BEFORE those laws were passed. Justice G. Steven Agee, who has since moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote the unanimous opinion for the court. "The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is 'an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,' " Agee wrote, citing a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case.
The court determined that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail or to such unprotected speech as obscenity or defamation. Many other states and the federal government drafted anti-spam laws after Virginia, but often specifically restricted the regulations to commercial e-mails, the court found. The ruling affects only the Virginia statute. So, I guess I can still send out thousands of unsolicited emails(as long as I don't forge my email addr) calling Obama a disaster for the US and that McCain can save the world and not break the law But I could then lose my broadband account because sending mass emails is against my TOS. Of course Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. I have the text of the constitution here.
»www.hescominsoon.com/archives/794 | |
|
| | rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Re: It didn't gave a right to send COMMERCIAL spam not the issue here!!! | |
|
| 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: It didn't give a right to send COMMERCIAL spam My reading agrees with yours, TK, although I still sense that the court erred. It's natural extension is that every law ought to have an expressed escape clause allowing for anonymous political or religious expression. That's pretty crazy, especially considering that Jaynes had no injury owing to the omission of such an escape clause.
And if you do start spamming anti-Obama crap, you'd be earning your name "Junk Mail." 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | 
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| Re: It didn't give a right to send COMMERCIAL spam said by funchords :My reading agrees with yours, TK, although I still sense that the court erred. It's natural extension is that every law ought to have an expressed escape clause allowing for anonymous political or religious expression. That's pretty crazy, especially considering that Jaynes had no injury owing to the omission of such an escape clause. And if you do start spamming anti-Obama crap, you'd be earning your name "Junk Mail." Anything with that Obamanation is Junk Mail. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| i think all kinds of spam should be illegal. its your right to voice your opinions on the internet just not into my inbox. not that my outlook doesnt just circular file the spams anyway.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Spam? It they did, let's all start pissing off the government by putting them on every single mailing list, posting their email and snail mail addresses all around and see how THEY like it!
Lenient scumbags! | |
|
VerdeDude
Simondsia Chinesis
join:2003-05-01
Northern Az.
| Free Speech is great But, if I did not give a spammer my personal email address, or give the spammer permission, and the spammer sends me spam, is that not an invasion of privacy?
The spammers steal or "find" email addresses to send spam to under the guise of free speech.
Something does not seem right with this picture. | |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| Fax laws?! Why doesn't our legislature fashion laws that are used for sending faxes to apply to anyone sending email? It seems like these SPAM laws are useless unless they get equated to something that already has widespread support. Junk email wastes arguably more resources than junk faxes ever did! A junk fax at an office would be thrown away only by people wandering by the fax machine. Junk email is typically directed at several employees of the same company, who all have to deal with wasting their time processing the email to determine if it really is SPAM or not... but it's still worse for email because of all the emails that contain malicious content. What if you received a fax that took over your fax machine and caused it to start sending faxes to other people!?
Sure, software SPAM filters can eliminate most SPAM, but all SPAM filters do is create an arms race of SPAMers outsmarting SPAM filters. In retrospect, if the technology existed at the time, would it still have been acceptable to send junk faxes if everybody were required to install junk fax filtering software/devices?
Equate SPAM to junk faxes and maybe these laws will be more effective. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| This is silly.... Sure, you have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to waste my time, resources, and money.
Apparently it's now OK to talk about bombs at airport security or speak rudely and graphically about/towards others in public, private, at work etc because hey, it's my right to free speech. Screw you if you feel offended, threatened, harrased, insulted, etc. That's YOUR problem.
[Virginia Supreme Court mode off]
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| 
guypd
join:2008-05-08
Silver Springs, NY | Re: This is silly.... That is a good point. Although, having walked around the malls lately, I don't think the teenagers know to watch their language. They feel that is is the right to free speech.
How sad. | |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR | Free speech bur no freedom to intrude on the Rigts of others Perhaps we need to get away from the net as public ownership and community and base it on property rights. That is my connection and e-mail is private property and I alone am the arbiter whose mail I receive. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| What I think you guys are forgetting... Free speech is exactly that.... Free speech. It doesn't mean I have to listen. For example:
If I decide on my own myspace, facebook, or other web pages that I hate blacks, jews, communists, etc., etc., that would be my opinion. Free speech does not mean you have to listen to my opinion and can keep it from being viewed on your own internet connection if you choose. That's your choice, and I have no right to enforce that you listen to me.
keep in mind this is just my example, and not part of at&t or it's affiliates. I have not kondone this nor do I ever
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
|
crischen
join:2000-11-07
Anderson, IN
| Let me Get This Straight If being able to email spam someone is guaranteed under the constitution...
Is forcing your way into someone's house and throwing 500,000 leaflets into their living room ALSO guaranteed as free speech?
No, it's not. Both of these are identical.. one just happens to be electronic.
"Free speech" is a governmental right; not applicable to private communication which, by default, email is considered a private method of communication. If this gets considered a personal liberty, then I am sure the Do Not Call list for phone solicitors will be challenged next.
The guy is clearly a douche.
--
-Kinsey
Geeky chix0r | |
|
| 
SEGATRON
join:2007-01-05
22190
| Re: Let me Get This Straight I agree that he's a douche (actually a spamming douche).
But, those are not identical.
You can always have a blacklist or whitelist on your address.
Most of the spam I get goes to the spam folder and gets deleted automatically. (way Less than 1MB)
Now, If I could make those leaflets go automatically on a special box that has fire inside and destroys it's, then they are identical. | |
|
mmoon
join:2005-12-03
Marietta, GA | My right NOT to get spam Seems as the laws of our land need a little more teeth in regard to our right to NOT get spam if we want. Maybe this is an avenue to approach our legislatures... | |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Comments disappearing? Since this discussion is about free speech, I'm curious why most of my comments have disappeared. | |
|
| PrntRhd
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA | Re: Comments disappearing?
See 6 replies to this post | |
|
| | rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Re: Comments disappearing? There seem to be an unusual number of drooling idiots here today. | |
|
| | | PrntRhd
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA | Re: Comments disappearing? OK, look for the compressed posts where your comments are, OK? | |
|
| | | |
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Not BBR's finest hour Some discussions are best left unstarted. | |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| The right to anonymity was upheld... In the ruling,
The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is “an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” The Virginia law, however, prohibited this... and, AFAIK, was the basis for overturning the conviction.
--
My Site | |
|
kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Is SCAMMING protected under free speech? Sure, we have a right to free speech, but when that "speech" is full of blatant lies and downright scams, at what point do you draw the line?
SPAM is not like TV advertising or junk mail. Paid advertising is primarily legitimate businesses advertising their products and services. SPAM is 99.999% crap. 419 scams, illegally distributed prescription drugs, malware pushers, phishing attempts, yadda yadda. Anyone who buys anything from a spammer/replies to spam/opens spam attachments are asking for trouble. We have a right to free speech, and a right to not have 500 scams, phishes, and other ILLEGAL stuff pushed on us every time we check our email.
If someone started handing out "Free Herbal Viagra" flyers in town square, they would (hopefully) end up in jail, 1st amendment or not.
--
The "duh" is the basic unit of measurement of human stupidity. While one may try to measure stupidity in megaduhs(10^6) or gigaduhs(10^9), larger units such as exaduhs(10^18) or yottaduhs(10^24) are more appropriate for measuring on a global level. | |
|
| cbs228
Geeks Of The World, Unite
join:2000-09-04
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Is SCAMMING protected under free speech? said by kpatz :Paid advertising is primarily legitimate businesses advertising their products and services. I disagree. The last time I watched television, I saw commercials for products like Enzyte—whose founder was recently convicted for multiple counts of fraud. I also saw ads for pawn shops, gold and precious metal buyers (can anyone say "fence?"), payday and title loan sharks that charge anywhere from 212% to 911% interest in an attempt to trap consumers into mind-boggling debts, and an entire smorgasbord of products of dubious usefulness. Advertisers—even the ones with national viewership—are a peculiar breed of people who will do anything to make a buck—just like the people who advertise with them.
Freedom of speech issues should be taken very seriously, but advertising snake-oil products or non-existent services constitutes fraud and should be dealt with as such.
--
At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn π/180 radians!
GENERAL FAILURE READING ©: DRIVE
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)rivolous Lawsuits, (B)ribe Congress? | |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| the internet-"Our Last Freedom" Will our government and do gooders PLEASE leave my free internet alone! Yes, there are annoying even illegal things happening on it BUT, this is going on everywhere. Once a govt controls the internet the next thing is more and more control then taxes. | |
|
|
|
|
You Have a Constitutional Right to Send Spam
