Spam is not speech.
Spam is conduct. In particular, it is conduct which consists of
a theft-of-services attack and a denial-of-services attack.
If are not aware of this, then
(a) I suggest that you are not fully informed of the canonical
definition of spam (UBE) and/or its consequences, and you are in
great need of an education on this point. I further suggest a
visit to the various anti-spam sites, the Spam-L mailing list,
and a thorough reading of the Spam-L FAQ.
(b) I invite you to examine the archives of the com-priv mailing
list, and, in particular, to search for articles by Barry Shein
on this topic. These articles -- including one series I'm thinking
of at the moment -- go into considerable detail on this issue,
and provide hard documentation confirming the points in the first
two paragraphs above.
Arguments about free speech are interesting; in fact, as an ardent
supporter of free speech, I went through the trouble to take some
classes in constitutional law in order to better understand the issues
and thus serve as an advocate. These arguments, however, are totally
irrelevant to the spam issue, although I note in passing that they
are frequently used by spammers and supporters of similar forms of
abusive, unethical behavior in a forlorn attempt to justify their actions.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
