K-Praxis - Topic: Unstructured Information Management

Spam and Free Speech
July 7, 2004

To shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre is an age-old demonstration of the abuse of free speech. To publish defamatory material in the newspaper is also considered illegal. However in the controversy of 'spam' and free speech there are issues apart from the 'truth' of the content of the material. K-Praxis takes a look at how the issue of free speech is at stake in relation to spam.

What is Spam?

SPAM is originally the name of the a luncheon meat by Hormel, but as it is used in this article today and by millions of internet users, spam refers to e-mail messages and postings that swamp e-mail. Spam is frequently described as e-mail that is sent in bulk; flooding the Internet with copies of the same message over and over again, forcing these unwanted messages onto the Internet users who might otherwise have chosen not to receive them.

Spamming Free Speech?

While there is no denying that spam is one of the biggest internet nuisance, could finding ways to combat it technically and legally amount to a violation of the freedom of speech? In the large war waged against spam, the proponents of spam are claiming that anti spamming laws and filters are a violation against the fundamental freedom of speech. The example most commonly cited is of K. Hamidi, a disgruntled ex-employee of Intel. Corp. who sent 35, 000 mails to its current employees, criticizing the company's policies. While this is not strictly considered spam, it could easily be discarded as spam by the sheer volume of the mails and prevent someone from voicing his/her opinion!

What about Free Speech?

Most of the controversies regarding free speech revolve around the 'truthfulness' of the speech content. In shouting, "fire" when there isn't one, there is a simple violation of the principle of truth. One ought not to shout "FIRE" when there isn't one. So also with defamatory material; if its content is disclosed as untrue, not due to an error but as a lie, that material becomes defamatory. On the other hand, if it can be proved that the same material is true, it is no longer considered defamation.

But Spam is not about Content

Most groups, in speaking about spam, confuse the matter of spam mails with the issues of pornography and/or fraud. There is thus a moral outrage against and for free speech and the right to spam, advertise, voice ones opinion etc. Even while it can be argued that spam is really not about free speech at all, the legal safeguard of the 'freedom of speech' is used by spammers to protect themselves against anti spam groups. Anti spam groups, on the other hand are raising protests against the need to protect the Internet and their personal mailboxes from child pornography and ads for fraudulent companies. They stress the need to take action against spammers on the same ground that spammers defend themselves. The retort given to anti spam groups is similar to the one which was faced by anti-pornography groups and censor boards; if you do not wish to partake of what is being sent/shown to you, you have an option of not taking/deleting it. Spam, however is a bad thing for other reasons.

Why is Spam Bad, Then?

Spam, also know as Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) is solely responsible for clogging the Internet, mailboxes and websites. It takes up web space and time to clean up junk mail. Moreover, often it fools the recipients by offering an option to 'unsubscribe' from the mailing list which is actually another spam. Viruses are often latched on to spam mails.
The nature of spam is such that it can even escape technical filters and killfiles, making it excessively difficult to avoid it. A very stringent filter would block relevant mails as well, in the attempt to rid one's mailbox of spam.

Though it is often waged on the battlefield of free speech, spam is more about the clogging of the Internet rather than about the freedom of speech, and the clearer one is about the areas in which it causes disruption, the easier will it be to find ways of tackling it.

	Making sense of online textual information and information management technologies

	Spam and Free Speech July 7, 2004 To shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre is an age-old demonstration of the abuse of free speech. To publish defamatory material in the newspaper is also considered illegal. However in the controversy of 'spam' and free speech there are issues apart from the 'truth' of the content of the material. K-Praxis takes a look at how the issue of free speech is at stake in relation to spam. What is Spam? SPAM is originally the name of the a luncheon meat by Hormel, but as it is used in this article today and by millions of internet users, spam refers to e-mail messages and postings that swamp e-mail. Spam is frequently described as e-mail that is sent in bulk; flooding the Internet with copies of the same message over and over again, forcing these unwanted messages onto the Internet users who might otherwise have chosen not to receive them. Spamming Free Speech? While there is no denying that spam is one of the biggest internet nuisance, could finding ways to combat it technically and legally amount to a violation of the freedom of speech? In the large war waged against spam, the proponents of spam are claiming that anti spamming laws and filters are a violation against the fundamental freedom of speech. The example most commonly cited is of K. Hamidi, a disgruntled ex-employee of Intel. Corp. who sent 35, 000 mails to its current employees, criticizing the company's policies. While this is not strictly considered spam, it could easily be discarded as spam by the sheer volume of the mails and prevent someone from voicing his/her opinion! What about Free Speech? Most of the controversies regarding free speech revolve around the 'truthfulness' of the speech content. In shouting, "fire" when there isn't one, there is a simple violation of the principle of truth. One ought not to shout "FIRE" when there isn't one. So also with defamatory material; if its content is disclosed as untrue, not due to an error but as a lie, that material becomes defamatory. On the other hand, if it can be proved that the same material is true, it is no longer considered defamation. But Spam is not about Content Most groups, in speaking about spam, confuse the matter of spam mails with the issues of pornography and/or fraud. There is thus a moral outrage against and for free speech and the right to spam, advertise, voice ones opinion etc. Even while it can be argued that spam is really not about free speech at all, the legal safeguard of the 'freedom of speech' is used by spammers to protect themselves against anti spam groups. Anti spam groups, on the other hand are raising protests against the need to protect the Internet and their personal mailboxes from child pornography and ads for fraudulent companies. They stress the need to take action against spammers on the same ground that spammers defend themselves. The retort given to anti spam groups is similar to the one which was faced by anti-pornography groups and censor boards; if you do not wish to partake of what is being sent/shown to you, you have an option of not taking/deleting it. Spam, however is a bad thing for other reasons. Why is Spam Bad, Then? Spam, also know as Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) is solely responsible for clogging the Internet, mailboxes and websites. It takes up web space and time to clean up junk mail. Moreover, often it fools the recipients by offering an option to 'unsubscribe' from the mailing list which is actually another spam. Viruses are often latched on to spam mails. The nature of spam is such that it can even escape technical filters and killfiles, making it excessively difficult to avoid it. A very stringent filter would block relevant mails as well, in the attempt to rid one's mailbox of spam. Though it is often waged on the battlefield of free speech, spam is more about the clogging of the Internet rather than about the freedom of speech, and the clearer one is about the areas in which it causes disruption, the easier will it be to find ways of tackling it.