Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:45:35 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net> To: jal@ThirdAge.com (Jamie Lawrence) Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dennis.moore@mail.house.gov Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV [please take to -chat] Message-ID: <199901160945.DAA54755@unix.tfs.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990115143915.03abd400@mail.thirdage.com> from Jamie Lawrence at "Jan 15, 99 03:32:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply: [absurd uneducated anarchist crotch-rot rant deleted] > >to disagree with this is to admit that self-policing the internet [or > >anything else for that matter] is an utterly sophistic concept that > >needs to be relegated to the status of fairie tale. which, by the way > >is a circular concept anyhow, since to agree with my reasoning is to > >admit the same. at least i have enough moral character to admit it. > > What? You're not making any sense. what part did you not understand. self-regulation DOES NOT work, HAS NEVER worked, and WILL NEVER work. it is a historically sophistic concept. where there is no threat of punishment, there is no incentive to not do something. anarchists like you have made the internet a ROTTING CESSPOOL of criminal activity. every now and then the toilet does need flushed lest the whole house become diseased! > The net is built on collaboration and self regulation. What are you > trying to say? That the inconvenience spam poses to you should bring > the regulators (who of course will have no idea what they're regulating, > but the voters want it, so so be it) running to regulate speech? how you criminals sit back and use the worn-out [and totally inappropriate to the conversation] phrase "free speech" to support criminal acts is amazing. free speech has it's limitations, constitutionally tested limitations. i understand your opposition to laws, as laws are the criminal's worst enemy. this is NOT a free speech issue. this is an issue of property rights. owners of private property have rights, the renters of private property have rights. well tested rights. your free speech right ends when you leave your owned/rented property or public property, and enter someone else's owned/rented property. disagree with me? what if someone throws a rock through your living room window with a note attached, and defends the act based on the free speech clause? are you starting to see the point? freedom of speech protections constitutionally end when you enter someone's domicile or place of business against their will [either personally, or by proxy like the rock through the window], or when you have been asked to leave. we rent domiciles and places of business on the internet. we have constantly asked you assholes to leave our owned/rented property and not to come back. you keep coming back. time to call the sheriff! if you believe in sending unsolicited shit so much, i'll let you do it the day you start paying my internet bills, until then you criminal assholes need to keep your shit out of the general public's owned/rented property that they pay good money for. THIS IS NOT THE POST OFFICE! until the spammers or the government starts paying for everyone's service, the supreme court agrees with me [ref. the "Recipient" ruling from the fifties, and every private property and rented property case ever heard by the court]. If effective laws aren't made, THE CURRENT LAW ALLOWING SPAM WILL BE OVERTURNED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the entire question of violating the rights of the owner/lessee of owned/rented property will be before the supreme court. i'm sure you know what the decision will be, no matter how conservative the Justice. you and your criminal friends are free to set up web pages and advertise them in an APPROPRIATE PLACE, such as an appropriately named newsgroup like alt.scams.advertised. by the way, spamming in inappropriate newsgroups is another good target for reform. based on the number of available newsgroups, and the ability to create new ones easily, such reforms would not in any way violate free speech. yell: "I have a bomb" in a public place and see what I mean about "APPROPRIATE PLACE", pass out a tract in a publically owned airport and see what I mean about "APPROPRIATE PLACE". have a public demonstration without a permit. the words "APPROPRIATE PLACE" are also constitutionally tested and found to be VALID limitations on free speech. you and your criminal friends are on very shaky ground. support a fair opt-in spam law, with real and involuntary enforcement, with real budgets for enforcement, or lose your scam method altogether. your choice. 270,000,000 americans are pissed. who the fuck are you to defy the will of the american public, or the U.S. Constitution [as upheld time and time again]?! stop violating OUR rights on OUR owned/rented property! 220+ years of tested cases can not be wrong, and WILL be upheld. take your faux pas "free speech" defense and go crawl back under your victorian rock while we piss on your parade. throwing rocks through windows is a criminal act, regardless if a note is tied to it or not! Posted: PRIVATE PROPERTY! -------------------------------------------------------- NOTE TO HONORABLE ISP OWNERS AND INTERNET PATRONS: remember this argument. remember it well. it will win EVERY case EVERY time you press charges against or sue a spammer. they will, as this criminal/criminal-supporter has, use "free speech" sophistry as the cornerstone of their case every time. what their uneducated and feeble minds don't understand is that it's not a free speech issue, and that it is a private/rented property issue. in some states it is perfectly legal to bash someone's skull in if they won't leave your private property. gee, i wonder why people get so emotional? as renters and property owners, it is up to us to do something about the problem [legal action], and when we cannot handle it ourselves, to compel our governments to handle the issue once and for all. Americans, forward all UNSOLICITED commercial email, regardless of fraud status to uce@ftc.gov AS THEY HAVE ASKED. If it overwhelms them, then they will see no other choice but to call the current [unconstitutional] laws allowing spam into question, as well as push for clear international treaties on the issue. time to call the sheriff! time to fire your right wing criminal supporting hypocrite congressman! politics are central to this issue, any intelligent discussion cannot fail to point out who enabled the problem to grow like a mushroom out of shit, while taking the money from the criminal's umbrella organization: the Direct Marketing Association. if you are not in america, keep in mind that most countries honor such private property laws and also have equivilant laws of their own along the same lines. relating the internet to private property is simply the natural progression of existing, applicable laws into the 21st century. we cannot prevent someone from renting space for a web page to advertise their scams, so long as their landlord allows them to. what we can do is to boot them off of OUR property FOREVER, and prevent them from entering unless directly invited [not by proxy], with the support of the constitution. a child of five understands that what i am saying is already a law of nature. unfortunately, due to the criminal elements, it also has to be made a federal statue [it already is, but criminals require the law to be specific to the internet before they take it seriously]. regulation on the internet is an issue of simple property rights, and a natural extention to existing laws. it's only a matter of time, and that time will be sooner than the criminals think. the U.S. Constitution requires that any law regarding interstate and international commerce be a federal law. constitutionally, this is a mandate. states are also free to make laws [to a certain degree] concerning commerce into or out of their states. the right wing idea of not enforcing regulations/laws has done nothing for America or the world for that matter but make things intolerable for anyone except criminals. the same goes for the whole concept of "self-regulation" which is simply a sophistic fairie tale concept that has no meaning. any regulation with a vague meaning is legally the same as no regulation at all. if they are not careful, the private property question will be put in the terms of "any unsolicited direct marketing" before the supreme court, that includes telemarketing. the constitution is on the side of the people. since it's a private property issue, restraint of trade doesn't even enter into the picture. free speech defenses in private property issues usually end up in a summary judgment for the property owner or lessee, so long as the legally valid point is made that it is a private property issue. anyone want to fund a test in the supreme court? i'll challange spammers! if i don't see any support for fair laws on the public's terms, i'll constitutionally challange the entire concept of all direct marketing not terminating in my U.S. Mail box. As soon as I file, they will have already lost because free speech and restraint of trade are invalid arguments in a private property case. any attorney on this mailing list will have no choice but to concur with my argument. spam will be beat based on private property issues. anything short of nationalization of the internet and integration into the functions of the post office, or a complete buyout of the internet by spammers offering free service for all conditional on users accepting spam will fall short on challange. i'm sure nobody wants either of those to happen! the spammer's only choice to remain in existance legally is to agree to new enforcable laws [and the applicable enforcement budget] on the public's terms. -------------------------------------------------------- TO MEMBERS OF THE DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION, RIGHT-WING WHACKOS, AND SPAMMING ISPs: THIS IS NOT THE POST OFFICE. your denial of the validity of my argument, or the seriousness of the situation CAN be interpreted as a verbal waiver of your rights to protection from denial-of-service attacks which are based on the same legal principles. if you are against laws and regulations, please don't be selective. you, by your own arguments deserve no more legal protection than you believe in the general public, honest businesses, and honorable isps having. you have had your chance to "self-regulate". by not doing so, you have shown your true colors. time for the people to take over. if we remove your kind from legal existance, it's your fault. you have had how many years to try to "self-regulate"? it does not work, and thus other solutions must be found. no more sophistic "voluntary" plans. "voluntary self-regulation" is synonymous with the phrase "honor amongst theives". fucking hypocrites. -------------------------------------------------------- to -hackers: please take this to -chat. i posted this in -hackers as well as -chat because of several rebuttals in -hackers based on similar invalid arguments. sorry for the length, but based on the refusals to comply with the wishes of a federal agency, and the sophistic arguments presented skirting the subject by defending the criminals sending the unsolicited commercial email [yes, a tresspasser is a criminal], I felt it necessary to clarify the whole issue in PROPER terms. please note that this is also Cc:'ed to my congressman. i'd appreciate if the honorable people out there would write similar statements to theirs. please ask your users to also do so blatently on your ISP home page, you might find that you get a lot of positive comments, and a larger customer base by doing so. jim -- All opinions expressed are mine, if you | "I will not be pushed, stamped, think otherwise, then go jump into turbid | briefed, debriefed, indexed, or radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!! | numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inet: jbryant@tfs.net AX.25: kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam grid: EM28pw voice: KC5VDJ - 6 & 2 Meters AM/FM/SSB, 70cm FM. http://www.tfs.net/~jbryant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HF/6M/2M: IC-706-MkII, 2M: HTX-212, 2M: HTX-202, 70cm: HTX-404, Packet: KPC-3+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901160945.DAA54755>