Microsoft v spam - Freedom of speech issue?

Microsoft wins court approval to shut down a network of PCs which it says is responsible for billions of spam messages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8537741.stm

Spam doesn't garner too many friends, granted. But isn't spam just a form of speech? And so isn't "shutting it down" a restriction of free speech?

I could be wrong, but isn't spam a way of advertising off the back of websites or other media?

Are the people who got shut down registered with websites or are these people who force unauthorized ads for profit?

I hate spam, but you correctly pointed out that's not the issue...

It's not the Ipad, but this is the best thing I've heard microsoft do in a long time!

Originally posted by FMF
Microsoft wins court approval to shut down a network of PCs which it says is responsible for billions of spam messages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8537741.stm

Spam doesn't garner too many friends, granted. But isn't spam just a form of speech? And so isn't "shutting it down" a restriction of free speech?

I dunno
Is shouting fire in a movie theatre free speach?

Freedom of speech is only such when it is accompanied by the freedom of not to listen (privacy controls and data protection etc).

Spam hackers do not comply with the later therefore the action is not a breach of rights just an pain in the arse removed. Nice work.

Originally posted by FMF
Microsoft wins court approval to shut down a network of PCs which it says is responsible for billions of spam messages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8537741.stm

Spam doesn't garner too many friends, granted. But isn't spam just a form of speech? And so isn't "shutting it down" a restriction of free speech?

Why should Freedom of Speech be a right not a privilege? And by privilege I'm not talking about an elite few here, but a privilege contingent on the speaker being responsible for what they say and being held accountable for speech that causes loss.

If a person exercises their freedom to speak and uses their rights/privileges in such a way so as to cause you an additional unasked for workload to cope with their uninvited presence in your in-box,then why as a member of society should I be concerned about upholding their freedom to speak?

Originally posted by FMF
Microsoft wins court approval to shut down a network of PCs which it says is responsible for billions of spam messages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8537741.stm

Spam doesn't garner too many friends, granted. But isn't spam just a form of speech? And so isn't "shutting it down" a restriction of free speech?

In the US, at least, commercial speech is not afforded the same degree of freedom as political speech. There is a right to free commercial speech, but it can be reasonably limited as long as the regulation is for a good reason*. Political speech can only be limited if the regulation so limiting it is necessary to achieve a compelling interest, a much more exacting standard.

To me, at least, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to protect people from having their email addresses effectively rendered unusable by enormous volumes of unsolicited spam (forget, for a moment, that gmail and similar addys can filter spam). Therefore, I think that regulating and/or stopping spam is reasonable.





* The legal standard is more technical, but "good reason" is close enough