******** Background: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02106.html http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=spam ******** From: "Dave McClure" <dmcclureat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Democrats kvetch about "cyberlibertarian" opposition to spam laws Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:14:43 -0400 Declan: USIIA also has opposed HR 718, and we're hardly libertarian either. It is, quite simply, a badly composed bill. Dave McClure USIIA ******** In-Reply-To: <20010605153409.B12372at_private> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:32:31 -0400 To: declanat_private From: Alan Davidson <abdat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Democrats kvetch about "cyberlibertarian" opposition to spam laws Hi, Declan, The harm in PPI's proposal stems from their defense, "It would apply to all spam, but to spam only." PPI's argument about spam is a lot like Potter Stewart's argument about pornography: They know it when they see it. But in fact most legislative proposals on spam have a sweeping definition of "commercial" that could include email from non-profit or political sites that offer items for sale or seek donations. For that reason we need to tread very carefully when imposing mandatory labelling requirements that may prevent this content from being seen. For example, I've received postal mail from Amnesty International that includes detailed descriptions of human rights abuses. I suspect that some of those depictions could even be considered "harmful to minors" in some jurisdictions - though they are lawful and constitutionally-protected speech for adults. Since Amnesty's website includes such "commercial purposes" as selling publications and soliciting donations, it could easily fall under the ambit of these spam restrictions. Should political speakers like this be forced to put a "porn" or "adv" label on their email calls for support - and risk being blocked by most ISPs? Such a requirement does hurt speech online, and is likely to tie this legislation up in the courts like every other Net content regulation law before it. The anti-spoofing proposals put forward, while imperfect, seem to be a far more appropriate remedy. They give readers the ability to talk back - perhaps in strong terms - to those who send unsolicited email. I suspect we might find that anti-spoofing requirements for unsolicited commercial email are a very powerful remedy that puts the onus on the senders of unsolicited email to be polite and show restraint - or suffer the backlash of a thousand mailbombs. Best, Alan Alan Davidson, Associate Director 202.637.9800 (v) Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.0968 (f) 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100 <abdat_private> Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org ******** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. 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 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 21:22:51 PDT