Re: See this security pack DO NOT OPEN

Two comments:

  1. The problem with free speech on military PX and BX stores: the military gets all kinds of exemptions from the constitution: look at military justice (an oxymoron). Jury? Hahahaha. Free speech? Try protesting in uniform. I'm not a constitutional scholor or attorney, but I suspect some specific exemptions for the military exist in the constitution.

  1. Charities and Political speech vs. commercial speech: the supreme court has frequently afforded fewer protections to commercial speech than to charitiable or political speech. See the lead editorial in todays Wall Street Journal (Sept. 29th).

There is a significant conflict between privacy rights and free speech rights which the Judge is attempting to navigate. I believe he erred, but others disagree. For example, you may request that the post office not deliver certain commercial AND charity mail and they will apparently do so and tell the organization to remove you from their lists. It must be done on an organization by organization basis; I don't know if there is a penalty for non-compliance. The key here is that there is no blanket "don't deliver any commercial junk mail to my house," but rather a selective blocking. Pretty hard to stop everything that way since oranziations change all the time. But even charities and politial organizations can't drive a sound truck down a residential street blasting their message away. Your city government has the right to prohibit such speech as long as they prohibiit ALL of it.

Congress probably has to rewrite the law to somehow include charities and politico's with the emphaisis on individual privacy. Will politicians act to prevent themselves from bombarding you with useless and unwanted "vote for me?" messages? Hmmmmmmm.

Ed. in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Mike Tennent at snipped-for-privacy@darientel.net wrote on 9/29/03 5:24 AM:

Reply to
Edward A. Oates
Loading thread data ...

Remember that AOL was sued for blocking some email from some spammers. I believe they settled. ISPs may have the same problem and Judge Nottingham with blocking some but not all messages.

If ISPs would give me a decent spam blocking filter AT THEIR END, I could stop stuff before it gets into my mailbox. Earthlink, for example, will let you block all email from those not in your address book stored on the server. Unfortunately, that address book is only sync'ed with their address book on the client which is not synced with outlook et al. On Mac and Linux, it is worse: they have no address book on the client at all!.

Ed.

in article 3f777f27 snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, David F. at snipped-for-privacy@lineone.net wrote on 9/28/03 5:41 PM:

Reply to
Edward A. Oates

I agree that the closest they should come is allowing separate opt outs for charities. We tell ANY phone solicitor to save their breath, we never give ANYTHING on the basis of phone solicitation. Given the incidence of phone solicitation outfits that suck of 80% in overhead and only send the balance to the charity, I think it should just ban all of it unless you specifically opt in.

Reply to
Steve Caple

Why not just use the client email?

Reply to
MrRathburne

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.