>Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:24:08 -0500 (EST)
>From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>

>On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> >They probably won't pass constitutional muster in the U.S.
>> 
>> Sure they will - same as the junk fax laws, which passed constitutional
>> muster easily.  The big issue is not just cost, but that junk email,
>> much like junk fax, does significant damage to the utility of the
>> medium - and thus, makes communication more difficult.  :)
>
>Sure.  And the National Enquirer does significant damage to the
>credibility of paper as a medium, so let's drop freedom of the press
>while we're at it.
>
>Stop for a second and think about what you're asking for -- do you
>really want any national government claiming jurisdiction over what type
>of messages may be sent through email?

Whoa there!  You are making a common mistake; the problem with spam
isn't its content (even though it's usually unadulterated cr*p), but
the method of delivery.  Email is not "free"; transmission of email
consumes the resources of the systems that relay and receive it.
Spammers commit theft of service by sending mail to those who have
not asked to receive it nor could be reasonably expected to desire
it.  The existing junk-fax law and the proposed extension of it to
cover spam are constitutional because they prohibit the theft of
service, not the content of the message.

Further (U.S.-specific, no less) political debates on this topic don't
really belong here.  See <http://www.cauce.org/> and
<http://spam.abuse.net/> for more details on the spam problem and
proposed solutions.
-- 
Mike Long <mikel@shore.net>                http://www.shore.net/~mikel
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken