[SpamCop-List] Re: "Spam" versus "free speech" (was Re: Political spam -- a first for me)

[Socks the white house cat]

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)