[OT] Spam (was Re: [oclug] rogers EUA)

[Francis J. A. Pinteric]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:12:50 -0500 (EST)
"David F. Skoll" <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:

> I hate spam, but I must play the devil's advocate here...
> 
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Ryan Lowe wrote:
> 
> > I disagree that spam falls under freedom of speech.  You may have
> > freedom to speak your mind in public, but that doesn't mean I have to
> > hang around and listen to you - I can go someplace else.  Not so with
> > e-mail.
> 
> Why is spam worse than regular junk mail?  It's well-established that
> Canada Post has the right (actually, obligation) to deliver junk
> mail to your door, even if you don't want it.

I really wonder if any sort of advertisements is really a freedom of
speach issue. Remember, freedom of speach and the other rights we have
under the law apply to people only. Corporations are not people, and have
no such rights at all. They're very existence is dependent on certain
laws, and the scope of their activities are regulated depending on the
industry that they service. However, corporations have been merely
assuming that they do have many of the same rights as people: to own
property, to conduct business (they have more freedom in this regard) and
so on.

Corporations are not people and so they have no rights, at least that's my
contention. Unless of course I'm missing something in law, I'm not a
lawyer after all. Any lawyers here who can clarify this? It does a raise
an interesting possibility. If corporations have no rights, they cannot
sue, and if sued, they have no right to representation. On the other hand,
if corporations do have rights, that might raise the ugly question of
whether or not they can vote.

Just a few musings.

>>>--fja->


-- 
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams
  -- Eleanor Roosevelt