Text Message Spammer Wants FCC To Declare Spam Filters Illegal 338
TCPALaw writes "ccAdvertising, a company purported to have 'a long, long, long history of pumping spam out of every telecommunications orifice, and even boasting of voter suppression' has asked the FCC to declare spam filters illegal. Citing Free Speech rights, the company claims wireless carriers should be prohibited from employing spam filters that might block ccAdvertising's political spam. Without stating it explicitly, the filing implies that network neutrality must apply to spam, so the FCC must therefore prohibit spam filters (unless political spam is whitelisted). In an earlier filing, the company suggests it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited political speech sent to their cell phones. The public can file comments with the FCC on ccAdvertising's filing online."
First spam! (Score:5, Funny)
Let's get it out of the way. (Score:5, Funny)
Because that form is bound to appear sooner or later I want to make it clear that I advocate a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting spam.
but
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
Not very soon after, they'd start calling collect.
Broken record... (Score:5, Funny)
I heard this before back in the late 90's when I a customer called up and asked why he couldn't connect. I told him "Sir you're account has been disabled for spamming". He new darn good and well he was spamming, oh but he denied it, and in frustration claimed freedom of speech. Good luck with that governments can deny speech we're not the government. Boy was he upset. Fun times. Sad these days spammers don't seem to get burned so easily unless they are dragged into court by someone big company...
Sorry .gov's looks like you might lose your spam filtering.
Re:First spam! (Score:4, Funny)
AFAIK the US Law does not state any such thing. That therefore must mean you do not have any such right, and are obliged to listen to whatever anyone has to say. /sarcasm
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Funny)
ccAdvertising is an American company, you [insert favourite insult here].
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Funny)
American?
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
No, the simplest solution is to shoot people like him.
How much would you like to bet that if he succeeds in manipulating the system he'll move all his bank accounts back onshore as a way of saying thanks to the system?
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Ok right so now we have both Free Speech and The Right to Bear Arms in this thread! Awaits prohibition :)
I'll drink to that!
Re:That's fine (Score:4, Funny)
While that is true, such legislation would impact all of those sending spam, not just ccAdvertising. Further, last I checked, there are plenty of people outside of the US spamming individuals inside the US, which would necessitate some sort of legal recourse.
This is America, you communist. Last I checked we don't bother with 'legal recourse' if foreigners annoy us enough.(And, honestly, in terms of US quality of life, having the CIA dedicate the secret torture dungeons and assassin robots currently used on 'terrorists' to the war on spammers would probably be an improvement...)