[XJarhead]

You know, everyday I go to by mailbox, and mail has been around for centuries, it's full of stuff I don't want either.

It's a HUGE difference, and the reason is cost. It costs a fair amount of money to print up fliers and mail them out. That's an incentive for companies to target a far more limited number of people. Spam is very, very cheap to send, and telemarketers -- particularly the computer automated ones -- are cheaper as well.

But the real problem I have with this objection to supposed governmental regulation is that it proceeeds from the assumption that people have the right to send you unsolicited e-mail. Even from a libertarian perspective, the assumption could be that nobody can use your mailbox without your permission.

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, there is no difference in unwanted mail, unwanted phone calls, unwanted faxes, or unwanted e-mail. Legally it's all the same.

The premise is the same. Business has the same rights as individuals. It's up to the individual to take care of these annoyances. Government will always be too broad and their laws will cost thousands of legitimate jobs.

There are effective spam controllers out there. Pop-up ads are more annyoing and can be stopped if you try. Radio Shack sells cheap phone zappers that weed out and block calls you don't want. It's much harder, or nearly impossible, to keep my postal mailbox from overfilling everyday with advertising.

There are so many easy ways to get around telemarketing calls or spam e-mail there is no reason to demand the government ban them or create lists. You give the government that much control and it won't be long before that power is used by others to ban or stop things they don't like. Forget the content or merits of the argument, the power has been transferred.