Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the joys of free speech is that it protects the stuff you don't
> like as well as the stuff you do. In fact, if it only had to protect the
> stuff people liked, we wouldn't need it in the first place. So every
> time something like this pisses you off, rejoice, because next time, it
> might by you being protected from someone who doensn't like what you
> have to say.
I don't agree that freedom of speech implies the right to stand in front
of the entrance of a store, on that store's private property, and harass
everyone who comes by. Similarly, I don't agree that freedom of speech
implies the right to relay spam off of someone else's mail servers. I
consider both of these to be basically the same sort of situation.
> A little inconvenience is a tiny price to pay for what we get out of it.
And precisely the same thing is said by a lot of people about e-mail spam.
They're wrong.
And, on this particular point (and this is the last I'll say on the topic,
since it really is off-topic), if you think that this is a minor
inconvenience, I respectfully submit that you haven't talked to people
who, because of the people who hang around in parking lots and the like
after dark, no longer feel safe going shopping for groceries after then
sun has gone down. It's a *serious* and *significant* inconvenience for
them to rearrange their schedules, particularly if they work Silicon
Valley hours, to deal with that problem. And it's not-unwarranted worry.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
