Re: "Spam" versus "free speech" (was Re: Political spam -- a first
Socks the white house cat
agent01413 at my-deja.com
Wed Feb 18 11:04:49 EST 2004
Someday in the distant future, archeologists digging thru the ruins of
spamcop will discover that "D.F. Manno" <dommanno at netscape.net> had this
to say on 18 Feb 2004:
> In article <403248ED.5802EFF2 at spamcop.net>,
> Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> (And, just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution does it mention
>> a prohibition on interfering with "political speech" in particular?)
> It's called the First Amendment. You should read it sometime.
The first amendment says congress shall make no law. doesnt say anything
about spamcop expressing the opinion that something is spam. doesnt say
anything about my being required to accept traffic from a spam friendly
provider. doesnt say anything about an ISP terminating political spammers
just as fast as they terminate commercial spammers.
Just to make it perfectly clear:
"We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right
under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the
home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even
valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good'
ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the
sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound
does not mean we must be captives everywhere. (cite omitted) The asserted
right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every
person's domain." - Justice Burger, for the majority, in ROWAN v. U. S.
POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
officially recognized SPEWS puppet
ISO certification and everything
I AM SPEWS
(SLAPP PREVENTION ELECTRONIC WHITENOISE SYSTEM)
More information about the SpamCop-List