[thelist] The Spam Argument

[Peekstok, Anna]

Frank wrote:

> I found my friend to be as dismissive of people who don't 
> want to receive 
> spam, as I find people tend to demonize those who send UCE. 
> Neither sides 
> are listening to, or acknowledging the other.

Frank, I read your original post with great interest because I have long
been curious about what makes spammers tick. Some things that struck me
about her contention that spam is a form of free speech:

* Free speech is guaranteed in public, not in private. You don't have a
right to walk into my home and talk to me. So an important question is: is
my e-mailbox public or private? I think there are good arguments for
considering it private, and recent legal actions protecting Americans from
unwanted sales calls are an interesting precedent.

* Free speech is about protecting the marketplace of ideas, not the
marketplace; it is NOT about guaranteeing businesses and entrepreneurs
unfettered access to every consumer for advertising purposes.

As for her "so my children don't starve" argument, not only don't I buy it
-- you can't whitewash a sleazy act by tying it to a good cause -- but it
sounds like a smokescreen she is using in her own mind to protect herself
from feeling guilt. There are many honorable ways to make money that don't
annoy thousands of people.

It's interesting that she insists on talking about society as a whole,
rather than individuals. In her view, I live in a capitalist society,
therefore as long as anyone is dumb enough to respond to spam in that
society, I deserve to suffer the consequences. Again, sounds like she is
working hard to avoid recognizing and taking responsibility for the negative
aspects of what she does for a living.

Anna