I have seen the future.

i'm entitled to knock on your door in the same fashion.

From:

The situations are not equivalent in any way.

From:

You are not, however, entitled to enter private property that has posted a sign stating "No Trespassing, No Soliciting, Violators may be Prosecuted under blahblahblah" prominently at a major entrance, and proceed to commercially (or otherwise) solicit the residents or habitants of said property, nor may you base your operations from the parking lot thereof, nor may you use their private mail meter to postmark your commercial mailers.

From:

correct. commerce is regulated speech. but an overly-broad prohibition on communications can readily violate the first amendment with regards to non-commercial speech.

From:

There is no such thing, commercial or otherwise, as *your* protected expression involving the use of my property.

Since all email is sent at the expense of and using the equipment of the recipient, junk email is the same as junk faxes and junk cellphone calls.

From:

you're mistaken under American law. i own my doorstep but jerkoffs can pitch faiths on it. and on the phone. and presumably by fax. i said all this the last time you didn't get it. stay in your secular paradise.

From:

#1: Are, or are not, junk *faxes* legal in the USA?

#2: Are, or are not, junk calls *to a cellphone* legal in the USA?

#3: What is the reasoning behind the laws involving your answers to #1 and #2?

The fact that the court doesn't understand what spam is is not relevant. The court is *wrong*. US law never grants you the use of my printing press and it never grants you the use of my TV station. My denying you access to my printing press and TV station is not an infringement on your rights, no matter what you wanted to say with them.

And a law that makes it illegal for you to break in and use my TV station? Constitutional.

From:

i'd like to hear all this verbatim in SCOTUS. Roberts would have a field day with your 'junk' word. bizarroworld metaphors from the guy who brought us "The situations are not equivalent in any way."

From:

I notice you're not actually answering the questions.

From:

It does grant me the use of your mailbox, though, in as much as I can mail things to it. Which is closer to the actual violation here.

From:

No, because the actual crime has to do not with damage to individual user, but in damage to their ISPs. In this case, AOL.

Spam is *incredibly expensive* to ISPs.

From:

Junk is not a legal term. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Non-commercial speech faxes are, to my knowledge, legal in the USA. No-commercial speech telephone calls are legal in the USA. The reasoning is the 1st Amendment, which (with case law) specifies (in particular) that religious and political speech are protected. This includes (as explained clearly elsewhere) scenarios where the recipent may incur some expense. Using 20 seconds of my time is also incurring my expense. There may be remedy in civil court (as stated numerous times, as well).

I respect your right to disagree with this long-standing view of the SCOTUS. I guess I missed the line where you said the American legal position is mistaken. You're welcome to stridently argue that. I happen to disagree with your position, your facts supporting your position, and your outrageous metaphors supporting your position. It's been hell on earth even teasing the impact of unsolicited commercial speech from this discussion of judicial review, when in fact commercial speech is regulated quite differently under the law.

I'm sure I said all this previously. My roommate adds: "People who are strident are usually the worst listeners, too." Let the reader decide.

From:

No-commercial speech telephone calls are legal in the USA.

Actually, there's a specific, explicit exception in the law to allow *political* telephone calls. Nonpolitical noncommercial bulk telephone calls to people who do not request them are illegal. Even political calls to cellular phones are illegal, on the grounds that the recipient is required to pay for the minutes involved in the call.

I happen to disagree with your position, your facts supporting your position, and your outrageous metaphors supporting your position.

Disagreeing with the *facts* is an interesting tack to take. And I still don't understand why you think bulk faxes and the use of another's printing press are any different in principle than the use of another's mail server.

From:

The political exception probably also includes religious exception. And the purpose of these exceptions in the law is because the law would be struck down as unconstitutional without them. And that's precisely how the spammers kill American legislation. It wouldn't surprise me if the law you refer to that prohibits bulk noncommercial nonpolitical telephone calls is ultimately killed by SCOTUS, but it would require a very particular case. Many countries (Britain, Israel) do not have judicial review. Does Canada?

SCOTUS states that the sensitive and essential nature of political and religious speech to democracy mandates that they cannot use your approach of "no different in principle than wild extreme X." These principles are not black-and-white to them. A religious or political speaker is entitled to ring my bell at the front door, and that incurs expense. The question is how much and that is how SCOTUS approaches it. These are gray areas. As the cost of cellular minutes decreases, I guarantee you that the constitutionality of speech bans will be revisited. Saying there is expense is not itself sufficient in American law to argue that the speech can be curtailed by legislation, because the American Constitution says in very clear terms that it must not be, so the question becomes how much expense.

I disagree with your calculation of the cost of unsolicited email. I know you say your dick is huge, but should the matter of unsolicited commercial email disappear overnight, there would be nearly no cost associated with the remainder. Honestly I haven't gotten an unsolicited bulk religious or political email that I know of. It's a category that primarily exists in the argumentation of spammers that a given law is overly-broad. In the past and this time, I've tried to correct your mistaken appraisal of the law, but now I understand that you are aware that you differ with SCOTUS on this matter. You take a black-and-white view that no speech should be legal that incurs any expense (time, offense, money) on the listener. They don't.

Finally, just because behavior might not be prohibited by law, you may find remedy in civil courts. (For example,

rfjason's current $75k case.)

From:

Under United States common law, if you have posted a notice on private property that states "private property, no trespassing" - The jerkoffs cannot pitch faiths - nor any thing else - on your doorstep unless they are specifically invited there by you (or are a duly designated government official).

I live in an apartment complex. It has posted signs stating "Private Property. No Trespassing. No Soliciation. Ordinance blahblahblah" at the entrances. I've gotten AT&T salesdroids ticketed and escorted from the premises by police because they were selling fiber-to-the-home service without management permission and ignored me when I told them to leave and come back only with written permission. I've escorted little-old-lady Jehovah's Witnesses to their car to see them off the property. I've kicked out kids being paid to hang takeaway menus on our doors.

Our cell phone is on the do-not-call list. We've gotten two unsolicited commercial calls to it and one of them may have originated from a US jurisdiction. I'm studying up on whether I can contact them to settle out-of-court in return for an agreement to not pursue a civil case.

I'm also very tempted to hire a lawyer to rubberstamp a plan to privately invoice and then take to small-claims court any commercial entity that shows up - in person or by brochure - unsolicited on my doorstep. The complication is that I live in an apartment.

Under American law, I can and do control access to my abode, time, equipment and services and can bill whatever I want for unsolicited access to same.

From:

once a fucking gain: not talking about commercial solicitations. for fuck's sake.

From:

eh.

From:

Once a fucking gain: Nobody gives a shit whether you're selling penis pills or explaining The Wonders Of Lord Xenu or whether you're Ben Franklin arguing why the US constitution is a good thing.

What matters is that *tresspass to chattels is still a crime*, even if you are trespassing because you want to SAY something.

From:

the distinction does matter. that first amendment, i don't think it means what you think it means. my right to reach you is not unlimited, but it is protected constitutionally. you might have redress in civil court, but "make no law" is kinda strict.

MUDDLE IT MORE WITH COMMERCIAL ANECDOTES. LET'S GO HYSTRIONIC CRAZY FROM CANADALAND.

From:

harald387.livejournal.com

The point that TWK is trying (and failing, through use of metaphor) to make is this:

No speech, commercial or non-commercial, should be allowed when the method of transmission incurs an involuntary cost to the *listener*. It is not legal for me to preach religion on a streetcorner and forcibly take $1 from everyone who hears me; it is not legal for me to create a commercial with a political message and then force a television station to broadcast it; it therefore should not be legal for me to create a spam email and send it to people who haven't solicited it.

To put it yet another way: I pay for my internet access, and pay for the throughput I use on a monthly basis. My ISP also pays for that throughput; my email provider pays for the hard drive your email ends up stored on until I get around to deleting that spam. When you send spam, you are (without solicitation) using resources which I and others own and pay for in order to spread your message; that's what differentiates it from bulk snail mail or door-to-door word-spreading.

From:

Coming to my door and ringing my bell incurs an involuntary cost of my time, and lost utility of my property, and frankly my time is worth much more than a haypenny. Should the cops step in? That's what this is about, not civil law! I think SCOTUS considers how much expense communications incur, and it's not black and white. A penny? A tenth of a penny? Unsolicited non-commercial email does not cost a dollar, and I suspect they're remarkably rare in any case, but this is about constitutionality of law. Typically this "religious defense" is tried by commercial violators anyhow. There might be remedy in civil court with regard to costs incurred by unsolicited contacts. Still, some accomodations are made to protect communication functions essential to democracy. Ok, let's hear more hysterical Ronpaulistan oil rig madness! Love it! Would still kick it out of law school.

From:

I think SCOTUS considers how much expense communications incur, and it's not black and white. A penny? A tenth of a penny?

Approximately two hundred billion US dollars a year in 2007.

A single spam message costs the receiver, on average, $US 0.10.

Unlike you and the Virginia Supreme Court, I actually know how email works. Also unlike you, I've addressed what you've said and countered your points while you've made absolutely no attempt to explain *why* I might be wrong. You haven't even answered whether or not you think your First Amendment rights include the right to print books on my press and distribute them through my publishing house, let alone why you incorrectly think that's different from using my mail server.

Now, grow the fuck up and start defending your wild assertions and otherwise discussing like an adult, or leave.

From:

i have clearly answered precisely these questions elsewhere in this post. Noting timestamps, locate the message I've authored chronologically prior to this one.

edit: lulz yeah the one you replied to but failed to read.

you can't aggregate the total cost of unsolicated commercial email on the system to determine the cost of a single item. jesus f. christ.

Edited Date: 2008-09-15 11:47 pm (UTC)

From:

Noting timestamps, locate the message I've authored chronologically prior to this one.

4:11pm, *this one*. (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3055153.html?thread=13953329#t13953329)

In which you made absolutely no attempt to answer the question, nor the previous questions posed here (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3055153.html?thread=13948721#t13948721)

you can't aggregate the total cost of unsolicated commercial email on the system to determine the cost of a single item. jesus f. christ.

There is no material difference between unsolicited commercial bulk email and unsoliticed noncommercial bulk email, because *unsolicited bulk email* is itself
A) an incredibly expensive problem for recipients
B) paid for by the RECIPIENT
C) functionally identical to junk faxes.

So. One last chance. Answer the questions - cut and paste from your nonexistent "previous answers" if necessary - or admit that you have no intention of doing so and absolutely no clue about how email works, and *fuck off*.

From:

Your views, while sensible, are not consistent with American law.

From:

sparkindarkness.livejournal.com

The fact he stole the contact information should be reason enough, to say nothing of the overload he caused... gah the problem is that judges are not necessarily up to date with the internet

From:

Seriously? You're surprised by a Virginia ruling?

Remember who the appellee was, in Loving's case.

From:

The ruling was not in favour of the spammer, but rather noting that the law overextended and could be used to quash anonymous non-commercial expression, as it failed to make any distinction between commercial use and protected non-commercial use.

A side-effect of the law being struck down is that the spammer, convicted under that law, has had his conviction voided - as the law was not Constitutional.

From:

I'm not sure how this actually happened. It's a federal crime, with a federal prison sentence, being decided on a federal constitutional issue.

Why the fuck is it in a State court?

From:

Actually, this conviction was not for a violation of the "Yes you CAN SPAM" act. This is a state law.

From:

It's a state felony law that he was prosecuted under.

From:

*There is no protected non-commercial use, by you, of my mail server*.

The law *cannot* affect protected speech.

From:

Is he using your mail server to send them? Or simply falsifying where the recipient thinks it's coming from?

From:

Basic email inevitability #1: *All email is sent at the expense of and using the equipment of the recipient, period*.

Junk email is *exactly* the same as a junk fax or a junk cellphone call.

From: