On The Insider: Dr. Conrad Murray Returns to Work
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 20 of 23:
Next »
« Previous
Good censorship vs. bad (and spam is bad)
We already have censorship. Take for example the DMCA which prohibits someone from writing about a software product if the manufacturer doesn't like the idea of having their crappy product reviewed. If our Congress can pass legislation like that, they should certainly be able to pass legislation that requires an opt-in approach. However, they won't do that because it gives less freedom to the businesses that purchased the election for them.

What if you DID want to send out an email in support of a political position? Fine, do it. But don't send it to people that don't want to see or hear it. THAT is spam and it should be illegal.

What if I came into your bedroom at 3am to give you my viewpoint on some issue? What... you wouldn't like it? Too bad! I have the right of free speech and by God, you're going to listen whether you like it or not. So what if I'm trespassing and violating the sanctity of your home? It's all about free speech isn't it? In reality, you wouldn't like it.

Well guess what! My email box deserves the same sanctity as your home. It's MY tool. I pay good money for it and no slimeball advertiser, legitimate company or not, should be able to force me to read their sales pitch.

Email advertisers are NOT exercising free speech, they are invading my personal space, period! Get a grip on reality Robert.
Posted by: shawkins   Posted on: 11/28/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

If the Direct Marketing Association  issthatso | 11/25/03
Disregard above message  issthatso | 11/25/03
DMA is a joke and so is the Legislation  shawkins | 11/26/03
ADV in the subject line  ddollinger | 12/02/03
if the get rich quick ads  lmaxwell | 11/25/03
My Computer Dictionary Isn't Here Yet  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/25/03
Only solution is to charge the advertiser for the spam  GregSalts | 11/25/03
Suprised? Not hardly.  worknman | 11/25/03
This isn't the first time  Sunny Jalolly | 11/25/03
Opt-out our representatives!  TheSlumlord | 11/25/03
AMEN !!! (NT)  Update victim | 11/27/03
hell im gonna start spamming  JoeMama_z | 11/25/03
Ok, but.....  James T. Kirk | 11/26/03
Well, now we know what the Spammers will be thankful for.....  James T. Kirk | 11/26/03
What a pandering waste of taxpayers' money  Taz_z | 11/26/03
Ineffectual legislation now on TWO continents.  kingsley_z | 11/26/03
All About the MONEY and Compatible  donald.coe@... | 11/26/03
Be careful unless you like gov censorship  Robert Rice | 11/26/03
Freedom of speech includes my right not to listen  Squawkbox | 11/28/03
Good censorship vs. bad (and spam is bad)  shawkins | 11/28/03
Freedom of speech is irrelevent  rbethell | 11/28/03
This isn't going to work as it targets the wrong people  bitfuzzy | 11/29/03
89%  wresnick | 12/15/03

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More