The Federal Trade Commission is now requiring the subject-line labelling of sexually explicit spam, as well as not putting porno pictures where they will automatically start loading in the preview pane of your e-mail client.
No doubt, many will disregard this law and use servers outside the US to evade the requirement, but if it cuts down on the sexually explicit junk mail clogging the nation’s e-mail boxes even a little, it will be worth it.
In this article on the subject, a lawyer for the porno spam purveyors is yelping about freedom of speech.
I’m sorry, but no.
My e-mail account is a private forum (else everyone in the world would be entitled to read my e-mail), just as my postal mailbox is. Freedom of speech does not give anybody the right to cram my postal mailbox or my e-mail account with offensive messages that I didn’t ask for and don’t want.
To send such items to me over my objection is mail harrassment, and I hope the people who commit it are prosecuted to the full extent of the law (which I hope is further strengthened from where it is now).
Boy, I reeeeaaaaly hate the term “adult entertainment”.
Ah, another of the beauties of the Pine email client. No images.
Here’s a letter and a response I got from Mr. Katz. These types just don’t get it…
Thank you for taking the time to write concerning the Associated Press article about the CAN-SPAM regulations (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/tech/main618630.shtml ).
Many people contacted me after reading my quote in the article, and I hope that my own attached article on my website is responsive to your
message: http://www.markskatz.com/marylandlawyers.htm . Perhaps you and I will find some grounds of commonality on some of the points presented in that article.
Meanwhile, thank you again for your message.
Jon
P.S. I started championing robust First Amendment and other Constitutional rights in college, long before there was a chance of earning a dime on such activities. My words come from my heart.
—
Jon Katz (licensed in MD, DC and VA)
Defending criminal suspects, the Constitution, and the underdog MARKS & KATZ, LLC Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
(301) 495-4300
http://www.markskatz.com/criminallawyers.htm
Bednarek, Jim wrote:
So these new rules are a way to violate first amendment rights. Pray tell, how do I stop this from coming into my home? My nine-year-old daughter receives ‘adult’ spam in spite of two filters on her email account. Do you have children? Do you let them use the internet? I am an IT professional. I know how to setup filtering software. Do I have to monitor every email message a nine-year-old receives?
If you have any brilliant ideas I would sure like to hear them.
I don’t see how labeling something violates someone’s ‘rights’. We label music, movies, etc. with warnings. Why not email that was not equested? People are getting fed-up with this.
I could see some small point if (and this is a big if) the low-life’s that are sending adult spam would actually run a reputable business.
They would not obfuscate the message headers. Unsubscribe links would actually work (what a concept). They would not misspell works to get
past filtering programs. They would not send the same message body with only different subject lines – subject lines that do not hint at what is in the message.
I tell you what. I can send you some of the rash that has come to my mailbox or my daughters. I’ve saved off copies as these have been sent to the Missouri attorney general. If you’ve got kids I could even send to your kids. (Just kidding – I don’t want any children to see this stuff).
Oh, yeah, we’ve got a national ‘do not call’ registry for telephone calls (and an even stronger law here in Missouri). Why is the internet different than the telephone?
Jim Bednarek
I want breakdance 🙂