Spam Facts

What is U.S. Code Title 47, 227(b)(1)(C)?

Isn't spam protected by national Free Speech laws?

Isn't blocking spam censorship?

Commerce is on Usenet and the Internet to stay. Are anti-spammers just anti-commerce in disguise ?

Isn't spam just the same as traditional paper advertising
(third class or "junk" mail)?

Then isn't spam just the equivalent of traditional telemarketing ?

Where can I advertise?

US. Code Title 47, 227 (b)(1)(C)
This code states that it is unlawful to send unsolicited advertisements to a "telephone facsimile machine". The code also defines this as "equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text and/or images from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line..." A computer with access to a modem and printer qualifies as a fax. Bulk e-mailers are breaking the law. This law states bulk e-mailers are liable for paying compensation of $500 per incident plus any incidental costs incurred by the receiver of unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Back to Top

Isn't spam protected by national Free Speech laws?
No. Free speech guarantees you the right to say what you want, within reason; it does not guarantee you a platform to make yourself heard. A daily newspaper will take any commercial advertisement, subject to two constraints: (a) it must fit within their advertising guidelines, and (b) the advertiser must pay for the costs of distribution. Spam fails on both of these counts.

Furthermore, different countries have different free speech laws. What may be legal in one country may be entirely unlawful elsewhere. Even in the U.S., where there are strong explicit free speech protections, the Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on speech, far beyond the stereotypical example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There have been no serious challenges to the U.S. junk FAX law, which restricts the ability of advertisers to send unsolicited messages to FAX machines, on the grounds that the cost is borne by the recipient.

Lastly, there are many commonsense restrictions on the freedom of speech. For instance, abusive phone calls are considered harassment and no one would try to argue that restrictions on them would impinge on freedom of speech. As another example, you can not be forced to pay postage on paper junk mail sent to you. Every medium is different; common sense dictates that different rules apply to handing out free leaflets in the park and calling people in their homes. It is time to enforce some common sense on the Internet.

Back to Top

Isn't blocking spam censorship?
No. Censorship is blocking information based on its content. Spam-blocking merely keeps the content in its proper place. My local public library has a bulletin board where people can post for-sale ads and business cards; they would be rightfully upset at someone who inserted an advertising flyer inside every book on the shelves, which is the equivalent of posting a notice to every Usenet group.

It would be censorship to try to restrict advertising from all parts of the Internet. However, asking someone to pay the fair costs of their actions is not censorship, it's simple economics.

Back to Top

Commerce is on Usenet and Internet to stay.  Aren't anti-spammers just anti-commerce in disguise?
No. Protecting users from spam makes the Internet more conducive to commerce, not less. Employers are more likely to let their employees read Usenet at work if the newsgroups remain topical and functional. Using e-mail for business is much easier if mailboxes aren't clogged with extraneous material. People are much likely to take Internet commerce seriously if they don't think of the Internet as a cesspool of scams, questionable products, and pyramid schemes.

Many of the people fighting spam are already conducting commerce on the Internet. Some of us are even old hands at it. We want to promote responsible commercialization of the Internet, not an all-out land-grab. Right now, spammers are using unethical tactics, and stealing resources from sites and users, to try to get a leg up on people who follow the rules.

Back to Top

Isn't spam just the same as traditional paper advertising (third class or "junk" mail)?
No. Third-class mailers pay a fee to distribute their materials. Spam is the equivalent of third-class mail that arrives postage-due. Real people pay real money, in the form of disk space charges, connection time, or even long-distance net connections, to transmit and receive junk e-mail and newsgroup postings. Unless we utterly overhaul the Internet's mail and news software to charge a mailing fee, spam is taking advantage of the cooperative nature of the Internet.

Indeed, spam is most like junk Fax's, which are sent at the convenience of the sender and the expense of the recipient. With third class mail, if you don't want it, you throw it out, and it takes very little time. If you are interested, you open it. Spam e-mail costs you and your provider money to receive whether you ever read it or not.

Back to Top

Then isn't spam just the equivalent of traditional telemarketing?
No. Traditional telemarketers are closely regulated by law in many countries. For example, in the US, they are prohibited from calling businesses, and they are required to stop calling anyone who asks to be put on their "do-not-call" list. Spammers do not follow these, or any of the other, restrictions on telemarketers. If you complain about spammers, they just harass you, and if you call their provider, you get indifference much of the time.

The difference again is who pays the cost - a telemarketer will have to staff up, rent phone lines, and pay monthly and often per-minute phone charges. Telemarketers cannot call collect. A spammer gets a throwaway account or a free trial disk, or signs up with a mass-mailing company, and blasts a message at hundreds of thousands of people.

In many ways spamming resembles those automated calling machines that became popular with telemarketers a few years ago. They programmed the machines to dial their way through entire prefixes, and frequently the machines hung people's phone lines and literally wouldn't go away. Likewise, spammers get e-mail address lists and run through them. I used to run a public mail node, and I get messages on a weekly basis for defunct accounts, and they're all spam.

Spam can be viewed as machines harassing people in a way which is very cheap for the machine and a substantial burden to the people.

Back to Top

Where can I advertise?
You can advertise on anything you own - your own Web site, any mailing lists you run (as long as people sign up voluntarily - note that much spam amounts to mailing lists people are signed up to without being asked), any newsgroups that belong wholly to you. You can't advertise on other people's mailing lists without their permission, on public newsgroups (by and large), or using other people's e-mail boxes, any more than you can put a billboard up in somebody's front lawn.

Back to Top