FC: More on bill regulating sex email, correct link to article

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Fri May 25 2001 - 08:36:57 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Univ of California officials reply to free speech case post"

    I neglected to include the URL to the article in my last message. Here it is:
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,44088,00.html
    
    Note that the bill does not apply to only businesses, but to nonprofits and 
    individuals as well. Also, the same bill includes restrictions on online 
    anonymity: A lot of deviltry is done in the name of fighting spam. The sad 
    part is that it's unlikely Congress can accomplish anything, since an 
    increasing amount of spam comes from overseas:
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41860,00.html
    
    -Declan
    ---
    
    Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:26:01 -0700
    From: lizard <lizardat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: Anti-spam bill goes further, regulates sex email, anonymity
    References: <20010525100653.B24321at_private>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-UIDL: 1fe7cc95bca6c5d93c8a560a54187304
    
    Declan McCullagh wrote:
     >    WASHINGTON -- Spam touting preternaturally nubile lasses and dubious
     >    penile enhancement techniques is, without question, clogging inboxes,
     >    vexing companies and alarming parents.
     >
     >    So nobody was surprised when the House Judiciary Committee
     >    overwhelmingly approved a bill on Wednesday that backers say will
     >    shield America's inboxes from the tacky carnality of spambots.
     >
     >    Nobody, that is, except legitimate businesses that suddenly realized
     >    sending even legitimate sex-related e-mail might soon be a federal
     >    crime.
     >
    
    And while this undoubtedly surprises the liberals who believed
    government could do some good regulating commerce on the net (for a
    liberal never saw a business he didn't want drowned in red tape, in the
    name of the public good), it surprises the libertarians not at all.
    
    I have said it before, and I shall say it again:No New Laws! Simple
    enforcement of *existing* anti-fraud statutes will put 99% of all
    spammers out of business. The only reason people want new laws is that
    they wish to extend government control over the internet.
    
    'Stop the spam' is the Internet equivalent of 'For the sake of the
    children' -- it's a magic code phrase that causes otherwise rational,
    suspiscious minds to shut down and embrace whatever idiocy is being
    offered.
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri May 25 2001 - 08:44:33 PDT