Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You 505
ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."
if they spam me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:if they spam me (Score:5, Funny)
But you HAVE to vote for one of them... (Score:5, Funny)
Man: He's right, this is a two-party system!
Second Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laugh)
And afterwards... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Vote Cthulhu in '04 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win.
Sadly, many people vote "for a winner" or because a candidate appears to have "momentum".
Exhibit A: Democratic primaries in the U.S.
OTOH, how much comfort do supporters of Nader's Green Party Presidential campaign in 2000 take in their principled stand not to elect Al "Lesser Evil" Gore, especially now that the country has experienced 3 years under Geroge W. Bush?
Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them... (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Cast your vote for choice. Check out the link below, and learn about the nastiness in Linux politics.
Re:if they spam me (Score:3, Insightful)
-Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares.
Re:if they spam me (Score:5, Insightful)
If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.
Good point. I seriously think that today's political climate is designed to drive people away. For simplicity's sake we'll neglect the electoral college in this example. If only 10% of the electorate turns out and canidate "A" receives a majority of the total votes cast (which would be >5% of the total electorate) then canidate A wins. There is no incentive for change because someone will always win. Forget the fact that our government derives their legitamacy from the people. Most people I find aren't really aware of that and feel it is their duty to vote and support the system no matter what they're given to choose from.
In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system. We did that once before remember... Think of it as a total scratch rewrite. :)
better spam than mass-mailings (Score:5, Insightful)
I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.
Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?
Re:better spam than mass-mailings (Score:5, Interesting)
They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.
So fuck um both. I hope someone brings a class action lawsuit against them if they do this horse-shit.
Re:better spam than mass-mailings (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."
If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.
Re:better spam than mass-mailings (Score:3, Funny)
Or go to their blog. I mean, all serious candidates have blogs, right?
Re:if they spam me (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for your spam. As one of the many Americans who believe that spammers are a somewhat lower life form than pedophiles, you can rest assured that the only vote you will receive from me is as a jury member in the felony trial you so clearly deserve.
Regards,
Re:if they spam me (Score:5, Insightful)
Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?
"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."
It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.
" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"
yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.
I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.
Re:if they spam me (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want. We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections. They have absolutely zlich electability. Nada. None. El Zero. It ain't gonna happen. A major change in the social and poltical views of America will not happen overnight. The first step is someone not quite as liberal as Lieberman or Sharpton. The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards. The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates. If we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan. We must vote the only person with electability. Doing anything else is a waste of your vote. Sure it's your right to vote for who you please but lets face facts people. If you don't vote for one of the candidates that can actually get elected (or a party that needs a certain percentage to be in the election next time) then you're wasting your vote. Of course voting out of the norm for your state is wasting your vote thanks to this damned electoral college, but that's another matter. You can't make a sweeping change overnight. Small steps people. Walk before you run a marathon.
the lesser of two evils (Score:3, Insightful)
Lieberman is conservative, not liberal.
Sharpton is a very charming and acute speaker, but he's a GOP shill! Let me repeat: Sharpton is a GOP shill.
Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, because of his tax policy and because of his single-payer health policy - something even Clinton could not get support for, something Dean initially tried in Vermont and couldn't get through.
Electability is a
Re:if they spam me (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.
"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."
And voting for the lesser of two evils will?
"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."
So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.
"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."
With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.
I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.
"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."
Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.
"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."
I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.
"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."
On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.
"Walk before you run a marathon."
Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?
The solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The solution (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends." That means less than 1% of the American population will see one of these emails, and I'd bet a pretty penny it won't just be in typical spam style (hint: it will actually be from a *real* address and company). The emails will probably be sent to people who h
Re:The solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. You'd sort of think all of their "close friends" already know that they're running... This will be used to drum up new contributions. It's political spam, pure and simple.
Re:The solution (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, know how many close friends want me to get body parts enhanced, house refinanced, visit this neat website,....
proportions ;-) (Score:5, Funny)
WHAT!? I will do NO SUCH THING!
I will overreact AND blow things WAY out of proportion whenver I please!
I won't let a facist like YOu dictate how I am allowed to react! That is the absolute worst thing I have ever heard! You sir are a monster! I'm adding you to my enemies list and I urge all slashdotters to do the same! You won't get away with such OUTRAGEOUS controlling statements!
Our ancestors died to protect us from people like you, you MONSTER!
HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!?!!!!
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike YOU I actually read the article. The headline does not in any way mention "close friends" in fact, the article specifically says "to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file" which not only is not "only about a million" it actually sounds like another way of saying anyone and everyone we can find an email address for and even the vaguest excuse to claim they might possibly be interested.
Even the writer of the articl is quick to admit how devious and underhanded this scheme is "And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad."
This is not even slightly about "save the environment" and other tree-hugging fantasies it's purely and simply a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws.
Re:The solution (Score:3, Funny)
That's impossible. Government would never act in self-interest. They represent us, not themselves. For the people, by the people.
Re:The solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The solution (Score:3, Insightful)
I just send a bogus invalid email addresses back at them.
Who is 'Them'? (Score:5, Funny)
It'll probably even say something allong the lines of "Forward this to 10 friends or you'll be cursed with 4 years of bad govornment."
This will get ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.
I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...
Happy Trails!
Erick
OT: Political culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.
I'd personally go with Kuchinich since he's the most sensible of the lot (crazy as hell, but sensible.)
My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:5, Insightful)
The key is to have the media spin you as the likely winner. It will make you so. Kind of like if Greenspan says things are looking down, they suddenly do so because, well, Greenspan said so and it must be true so let me just put this money under my mattress.
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an odd assertion. I think its widely recognized that Dean was the only Democrat with the hutzpah to:
- attack Bush
- oppose the Patriot Act
- oppose the Iraq war both for the deception used in selling it and the mess its proving to be
- denounce special interests and the way they are outright purchasing our government
Dean's fortunes really turned because Kerry, in particular, stole his message when he realized it was resonating with the majority of Democrats if not half the electorate as a whole. This leaves us with a bizarre hypocrisy where Kerry is now critical of the war in Iraq though he voted for it. He is critical of the Patriot Act though he voted for it and may have written predecessors of it. He is criticizing special interests though he takes more special interest money than anyone in the Senate.
A real plus about Kerry is, if you don't like his positions on the issues, you can just wait a while and he will flip sides to the one you like. Of course he also flips from positions you like to ones you don't with equal randomness. He is completely devoid of conviction which means he is "electable".
In all fairness, Dean did a lot of damage to himself when he stuck his foot in his mouth a few times on things like Saddam and Bin Laden. Its real hard to be a loose cannon, and take controversial positions, and also not stick your foot in your mouth sometimes.
If it hadn't been for Dean the Democrats would have gone in to this election cowering in fear of Bush's invincibility and they would have gone down in flames. Now they at least have a chance since Dean gave them a backbone. Dean also made the first attempt in a while to actually restore democracy to this screwed up country by getting ordinary people involved in politics again, especially with the aid of the Internet which is likely to be the only thing that might save democracy in America. Unfortunately all those people are tasting the bitter pill of how the establishment and the media destroy anyone trying to restore actual democracy, with a little d, to this country. End result is we will have two wealthy aristocrats, both Yale grads, both members of Skull and Bones squaring off in November, to see whether we will have an establishment Democrat or an establishment Republican taking their turn in the White House.
Dean might have said stupid things about Bin Laden, but its not quite as bad as the Bush family having intimate ties to the Bin Laden family. Bush also hushed up the extent Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11 at the same time they were trying to pin it on Iraq which was probably the country in the Middle East that had the least involvement with Al Quaida, Bathists being secular socialists, not fundementalists, who claim to be Muslim mostly out of convenience. It still seems to be completely lost on Americans, smart people that they are, that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi for the most part. There were no Iraqi's.
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:3, Interesting)
Our presidential election system is oligarchy. Congressional elections are not quite so bad, but close. The sad truth is, most people do not realize that there are more parties -- the republicans and democrats have dominated politics for so long that peo
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:5, Informative)
Although maybe if the Libertarians and the Greens could manage to take votes from the Democats and Republicans equally, third parties might be able to rise in power. (Although there are probably quite a few more Democratic-Libertarians than there are Republican-Greens.)
Now, if we used "Instant Runoff Voting" or "Approval Voting," this problem wouldn't be as big a deal.
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:3, Insightful)
I get tired of the complaints about the two party system, it has it's problems but I think it is superior to most multi-party schemes. A multi-party system where only a plurality is required to win would give us elected officials that only had the support of small minorities. A system which features a run-off between the top two candidates is back to a "lesser of two evils" situation BOTH
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.
Re:OT: Political culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do I begin? Yes, democracy requires choice, but it doesn't require more choices. The problem with US elections is that we are presented with a choice between a Republican or a Democrat, both of whom hold positions so close together on so many issues that there is no difference. That's because deviating from a certain
But it does (Score:3, Insightful)
The most effective way to affect politics is run yourself and win. Next is to go to the caucuses of one major party and get some resolutions passed, and then work to get your canidate elected. However you can't run for all positions, or might not be elected, your next option isn't of much use if the rest of the party members shoot it down. So you have one more options: third party votes.
Voting for a third party gets noticed, perhaps out of proprotion. These are people who took the time to vote and w
Re:This will get ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not exactly an ad that's destined for the hall of fame of political advertising. This is far too early in the campaign to be going negative. It really seems like we're in for a bumpy ride of an election, especially if Kerry decides to return fire.
Re:This will get ugly (Score:3, Interesting)
But what I don't understand is, (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like it's too dangerous. Although, I guess there is a reason why spammers continue to spam. They really want that walking-around-in-their-underwear-at-walmart-scop
Re:But what I don't understand is, (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason they continue with political attack ads and the like even though nobody likes them: Everybody else is doing it, so why not? You may lose votes, but it certainly won't give votes to the other guy since they're doing it, too. Don't forget that many of the same members of Congress that supported the national do-not-call list still use telephone campaigning. Come to think of it, the "everybody else is doing it..." bit also explains much of their behavior while in office (re: USA PATRIOT Act).
Then there's the additional reason "Because it works."
"It seems like it's too dangerous."
It's kinda like "Mutually Assured Destruction." They'll all stop as soon as everybody else stops.
This is dumber than spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Spammers don't need you the way a candidate does. Most spammers have already annoyed most people, and expect that their emails will get deleted/filtered by 99% of people. Candidates need a large percentage of the population to support them, so campaigning in a way that loses you more people than you gain (such as spamming them) is not a Good Thing (TM).
Thank God Australia hasn't gotten this far... yet...
Re:But what I don't understand is, (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you just didn't read the article.
Email? What about phone?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed if his platform didn't amount to nothing more than "I'm not Bush!" As a Senator, he's voted in favor of just about everything that Slashdotters despise. Why do you people like this guy?
Re:Email? What about phone?! (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm not Bush!"
Re:Email? What about phone?! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you said "Bush." Sorry...
Re:Email? What about phone?! (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate, last year there was very little telephone campaigning, except towards the end there were a few calls here and there at annoying hours for one candidate, and when word got around that candidate accused his competitor of hosting the telephoning in order to frame him.
Are you sure those calls are really from Kerry supporters?
One of the two reasons I'm not happy about "campaign finance reform" is that focusing more on limits and less on accountability actually helps things like this happen. The more otherwise legitimate contributions are forced to be made in roundabout manners, the more chaffe the truly despicable campaign practices have to hide among.
Re:Email? What about phone?! (Score:5, Insightful)
My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.
I don't think his voting record looks that bad.
When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".
Hard enough to find a good candidate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their spam will be sent back. Their "voter feedback" form will be used to explain why I would never buy a product advertised by spam - including the President.
I don't think that will help (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't do anything to stop negative spam, though. If you get an email talking about what an idiot Kerry is, does t
Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).
All right. Who'
Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate... (Score:5, Interesting)
With text, tey can explain much more what their vision is. They can put links to more information. They can educate the public on their views much better.
I mean it depends on what they do with it, but I think it could have potential.
who's paying? (Score:5, Interesting)
So are they going to make my bandwidth [ispol.com] tax-deductable?
Oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or
2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?
Re:Oh please... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh please... (Score:4, Informative)
There are some exceptions. A lot of people know the factoid about Jackie Kennedy having free use of the USPS for the remainder of her life, but few realize that all first ladies have that privilege. So do all former Presidents. There are restrictions here too; oddly enough, the franking privilege for ex-Presidents and ex-First Ladies is only good for personal mail. Go figure, they have to pay for their personal postage while they're in power, but they get it free forever after that!
You can see some of the regulations in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual, S E050 [usps.gov]. The 60 day rule regarding elections and franked mailings is not mentioned here but I'm certain of it.
Full disclosure: I spent 5 years working for a commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA) and I mostly knew the DMM inside and out. That was 5 years ago, and things have certainly changed, but I was able to find the franked mail guidelines easily enough in the current DMM.
Re:Oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone know if spam has actually decreased the volume of paper junk mail, or at least slowed its increase? My guess is that it probably hasn't, except in a few specialist areas such as press release distribution.
There is only one message I'll respond to: (Score:5, Funny)
Na-na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na-na, Leader!
D'oh!
If they spam me.... (Score:4, Funny)
If bush spams me - i'll send an email back bitching him out for sending me an unsolicited email and continue on to bitching him out for being a complete retard
Adult content filter (Score:5, Funny)
If I can devise a Lurch [addamsfamily.com] filter I might be able to avoid any messages from Kerry too.
Sure (Score:3, Funny)
Candidate spoofing (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it was the first thing I thought of! How will I know whether the email I got was really from the candidate who supposedly sent it?
Re:Candidate spoofing (Score:4, Interesting)
What Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
It only refers to their respective rank-and-file, I guess these people have signed up on some list to receive them.
Once again, Slashdot hypes and puffs something up to be more than it really is. No need to get worked up over "Your Rights".
The most interesting question . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The most interesting question . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The most interesting question . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Your faith in the intelligence and wisdom of your fellow humans is admirable, and I hope that someday I too will be capable of such strong belief in in the higher qualities of man, despite such overmounting evidence to the contrary.
Caucuses and Spammaries (Score:5, Informative)
I will give to a Presidential campaign that I support when I can check a box that says, 'Do not spam or harass me.' (Or when I can provide darl@sco.com as my e-mail address) But not before then, I'm afraid.
Re:Caucuses and Spammaries (Score:4, Informative)
Come on dude, this is SOOO easy to deal with....
Re:Caucuses and Spammaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.
Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.
"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.
"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.
Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely. This is totally analogous to the decisions wherein the Court said that political activists can come uninvited into my home and staple campaign posters to all my walls...
Oh, wait...
Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole (Score:5, Insightful)
I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.
If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.
The receiver of the message necessarily bears some of the cost of the message--toner, paper, temporary loss of use of the line for fax machines; connection and bandwidth charges for spam.
The First Amendment rights of others end when they start charging me (directly or otherwise) so they can express themselves. The First Amendment guarantees one the right to speak--it doesn't guarantee that I will pay to listen.
Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Blacklisting (Score:3, Funny)
If they have the right to spam me, I reserve the right to spam them back. On to the game of 'how many religion and porn lists can I sign up their staff for?
Hint: it's scripted
Whoever sends me election spam.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, they have the law on their side, but morally they're no different than any other spammer.
hey joe! FREE pr ES agura? (Score:3, Funny)
Referrer spamming (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're unfamiliar with the term, referrer spamming is when fake HTTP Referrer headers are used to make referrers show up in webserver logs so the webmasters think they are linked to by that site.
He was getting only porn spamming up until about a month ago, when the presidental candidate pages started showing up.
Re:Referrer spamming (Score:4, Interesting)
Referer stats are often part of stats pages that are made available under the original URL of your site. For example, if your domain is http://example.com/, your stats may be made available to you from http://stats.example.com by your hoster. The hope is that your stats are available without password protection and are found by Google.
By showing up in your referer stats, the spammers are essentially creating a link from your stats domain to their site, boosting their general google page rank tremendously.
Sending death threats as reply is a bad idea here (Score:3, Funny)
in a way I am happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who isn't a rich, "preapproved" canidate can stand toe-to-toe in emails.....well, at least come closer to it.
Steve
What I wouldn't object to (Score:3, Insightful)
This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.
They're sending me WHAT? (Score:3, Funny)
"The format is a Web video message e-mailed to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file."
You have GOT to be kidding me!
You have to wonder WHY are they DOING THIS?
"And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law"
No surprises here: Politicians find new ways in which The LAW does not apply to them. Details at 11.
Keeping it US only??? (Score:3, Insightful)
They Automatically provide the filter information (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wait until... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions (Score:3, Interesting)
A little thing like the Twenty-Seventh Amendment doesn't seem to slow them down, so why should a silly little thing like anti-spam laws get in their way? After all, they just made sure you w
Re:Slightly OT mini-rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote
There isn't any penalty specified in the constitution if voter turnout is low- 10% percent turnout doesn't make the winner 10% president. Therefore, the only result you and people like you not not voting is that no major party will care about things you and people like you care about.
The thing is, in a free country there's bound to be a huge diversity of incompatible world views- the chance that you and a candidate or party agree 100% is pretty low. Refusing to choose is just a cop-out.
If the incumbent is a corrupt incompetent moron who can't string two unrehearsed sentences together, and the other candidate may be no better, what do you do? Kick the incumbent out- at least the guy coming in will be a little more humble and thoughtful about whether they're doing the right thing if they know the public will judge them harshly.
Re: Very OT mini-rant (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.
It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political fa
Re:got emails last year (Score:4, Funny)
Otherwise, he would say, "Well thanks for your input. Be sure to get out and vote day after tomorrow!"