Spam Isn’t Protected Speech

I take issue with Times readers Janine Levinson and Ben Perry, both of whom present opinions against the banning of spam e-mails [“Banning Spam Would Kill Free Speech,” Letters, April 7].

Levinson defends spam on the basis of the 1st Amendment, whereas Perry feels that banning spam would have serious economic effects.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of the press and speech; it does not require the recipient to pay for what is printed or spoken. Spam, telemarketing calls and junk faxes have in common that the recipient of the message must pay in time or money or both for the unwanted message.

It is the recipient who pays for the Internet connection and who must waste time deleting the unwanted material.

It is the recipient who pays the phone bill and who must take her precious time--often interrupting something important--to answer the telemarketer’s phone call.

It is the recipient of junk faxes who pays for the fax paper, the wear and tear on the machine and the electricity.

Spam and its relatives are not, therefore, protected by the 1st Amendment unless the sender is willing to pay for the privilege of transmitting the message.

As for the economic argument, if the consumer is required to pay for unwanted advertising (without other content, as in a magazine), that is tantamount to making charities of the marketers who purvey these ads.

Richard E. Goodman

Camarillo

*

Janine Levinson writes: “I would rather spend an extra three minutes a day deleting the many unsolicited e-mails that I receive than accept the overwhelming burden of telling merchants (unsavory or otherwise) that they haven’t the privilege to advertise via e-mail.”

Three minutes a day adds up to two full work days that every worker with e-mail spends deleting spam. Multiply this by the tens of millions of workers who get unsolicited e-mails and you see what a drag on the economy spam is.

Richard Showstack

Newport Beach