[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D67BA@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
> Moreover, spamming is not an excercise of free-speech. It is an
> attempt at free advertising. Basically, they are getting something
> for nothing. They are (generally) trying to sell something, and not
> have to pay to advertise it.
No one's claiming that RBL blocks spammer's rights to free speech... at
least that's not how I read it.
RBLs block LEGITIMATE SPEECH in an attempt to block spammers.
The cure is worse than the disease.
Jeme A Brelin