The Constitution Does Not Protect Spamming

The New York Times ^ | May 12 2002 | ADAM COHEN

[SBeck]

Although the author brings up some valid points, he fails to point out that the individual has the power to 1) turn off the accursed TV, and 2) hit the delete key. However, this assumes an educated populace that isn't seduced by the siren songs of mega-corporate America and Madison Avenue.

Fire away.

[brityank]

Fire one.

They have a right to speak. They have no right to be heard.

Fire two.

Their right to disseminate ends at the point it requires

• my time;
• my treasure;
• my facilities of any type

for their pronouncements.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Last month, by a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring pharmacies from advertising "mixed to order" drugs, pharmaceuticals that have not gone through the usual safety screening. The largely conservative majority was more concerned about pharmacies' right to market these products than the government's interest in protecting the public from drugs that, as the dissenters noted, "can, for some patients, mean infection, serious side effects or even death.""

I guess only those medications sold by large pharmaceutical companies and "blessed" by the FDA should be sold. As long as the formulation is prescribed by the physician, and made up by a licensed pharmacist from materials of certified purity, why SHOULDN'T they be available, and advertised as such.

Full disclosure--I take a "compounded medicine", because it isn't AVAILABLE from the big pharmaceutical companies. It does its job nicely, thank you.

[SBeck]

I think the line is drawn when pharmacies advertise pharmaceutical cocktails which have not been prescribed by a physician.

[mhking]

Their right to disseminate ends at the point it requires...

Exactly!

[SBeck]

Which goes back to my point about an educated populace.

[gunshy]

How is spamming any different than receiving junk mail?

[brityank]

In my mind, it isn't; but at least with snail-mail, I take the opportunity to return as much as I can in their own Business Reply Postage Paid envelopes. Replying to email just ensures you will be authenticated and end up on more lists.

Someone needs to come up with some type of password for Fax acceptance; my office goes through a ream of paper a week on the four we have for this trash.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[cgbg]

How is spamming different from junk mail?

Junk mail serves an important social purpose--it can be burned in fireplaces or woodstoves to produce heat.;-)

Spamming is almost as bad as telemarketing--it is irritating and serves no purpose whatsoever. Spammers should be placed on outdoor display in those old New England stocks so passersby can spit at them.

[MarkL]

How is spamming any different than receiving junk mail?

One key difference is that junk mail doesn't take up much, at least as far as resources go... On the other hand, as a network administrator, I find that I have to spend at least a half hour a day entering domains into our email server's "refuse" list...

And don't even get me started about spammers who use other servers for relay, in order to hide their identity!

Mark

[strela]

I find that I have to spend at least a half hour a day entering domains into our email server's "refuse" list...

Have you ever considered using SPEWS (Spam Prevention Early Warning System)? They regularly publish lists of known spamhausen in several ways including Procmail filters, router DENY tables, and records you can use as DNS zone files. SPEWS is quite effective at helping you shunt off much of the spam before you receive it.

I'm not SPEWS and don't represent them, but my company uses their service and is happy with it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I think the line is drawn when pharmacies advertise pharmaceutical cocktails which have not been prescribed by a physician."

I have yet to see a reputable pharmacy here in the US do this kind of thing--maybe they do in other countries. In fact, most "compounding pharmacies" (i.e. pharmacies that regularly do such custom-blending) that I know about do not even advertise the fact that they in fact do such custom-blending. You typically have to find out from a physician which ones undertake such work.

[ofMagog]

SPAMCOP is an excellent freebie program that helps a little.

Being at sea much of the time and using a satellite phone system for the internet means spammers cost me considerably.

Spam reduces overall national productivity as company employees have to spend so much time deleting it. It would help if the laws concerning mass faxes were applied to spam. Plus, no one with above double digit IQ would ever buy anything that came from a spammer.

Spammers and those who supports them should be squatted over a belt sander, or over a blender set on puree.

[weikel]

Hmmm spam never bothered me that much telemarketers on the other hand...

[Norman Conquest]

The difference is incoming spam costs me time and money. My ISP pays more for the storage space to hold this unsolicited crap and passes those costs on to me. I have to spend time deleting them from my inbox so I can reach my real mail, and to keep real messages from being turned away because I've reached my mailbox quota. Sometimes I lose real messages when I shovel out the garbage carelessly.

[inquest]

I think the line is drawn when pharmacies advertise pharmaceutical cocktails which have not been prescribed by a physician.

Then the issue isn't really speech in and of itself; it's dissemination of misleading or outright false information. If it can be proved as such, then the first amendment doesn't apply. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the communication is "commercial". If it propagates false information, and that information can do harm, then it should be evaluated on that basis and only that basis.

[inquest]

I think you pretty much got it right. I want to emphasize, though, that the criteria you listed have nothing to do with whether or not the communication is commercial, or indeed what the content of the communication is at all. So that's why I get nervous when I hear the courts start splitting off different types of speech and saying this is OK, but that's not. The legal issue should always be how the information is disseminated, not what is being said. (unless, of course, the "what" consists of such things as threats, lies, etc.)