From: IN%"brian @
net" 14-SEP-1996 19:18:55.04
>Yeah, the term you use is "free" speech (you don't need to lecture me on
>the alternate use of the word free in this context. I know what "free"
>refers to in "free-speech") not "you pay for me to speak to you"-speech. I
>have to pay a real out of pocket cost price to have spam sent to me. How
>does that fit in with your argument?? Does free-speech give me the right
>to harass people at their expense for as long as I want (and they can
>afford to pay for me to do it)??
As I've said time and again - read the whole thread before you
respond, please, otherwise you're sending mail as useless as the spammers' -
I'm not claiming that spammers should be free to send to you over your
objections. I'm saying that, to protect free speech, commercial email needs
to be as capable as non-commercial email of being legally anonymous.