DECLARATIONS: The statements made herein reflect the opinion of the author, and are not the responsibility of the author's place of employment, nor of any other business entity. Any attempt by parties unhappy with the opinions expressed here to force removal of this page, either directly or through coercion of my 'upstream' providers, represents an infringement of constitutional rights and will be dealt with proactively.

Spammers, as they're commonly called, have in the past few months or so accelerated a 'spin' campaign designed to wrap their illegal practices in a curtain of patriotic, jingoistic, 'rightful' language. With apologies to those who live beyond the borders of the United States, they insist that their right to send UCE -- at others' expense -- is a manifestation of their First Amendment free-speech rights. It ain't 'Frea Speach,' as one spammer gloriously misspelled it; it's just theft.

How so? The ability to stand up and emote one's thoughts, opinions . . . or sales pitches, I guess, is justifiably protected, by the First Amendement in the U.S., and by similar laws in many other countries. But there is one thing that the guarantee of free speech does not include -- the forum of choice from which one can spread his message. One is allowed to buy or otherwise arrange a forum for the message, with a few society-based exceptions. But one is not allowed to seize the property of others to conduct a message campaign. Spammers want us to not notice this distinction. They'll do everything they can to make us miss the point, because to accept this would mean acknowledging that because a computer can be programmed to do a task, it should be allowed. But each person's computer and rented ISP space is private property, and must be protected as such.

Spammers don't want to admit this. Matter of fact, just mentioning this irrefutable legal nugget is enough to guarantee harassment and other unpleasantries from these folks. But too bad for them; the numbers of people fed up with vile UCE-spewing practices grows every day.

Specifically, the difference between UCE and other forms of advertising is the shifting of costs from the seller to the recipient of the unwanted e-mail. Spammers ignore this fact, and instead try to justify their practices by citing similarities between this and regular postal junk mail. But junk mail is printed and postage-paid-for by the sender; UCE resides in specifically allocated computer spaces that are rented by internet users everywhere. Every instance of UCE is trespassing on private property, more accurately referred to by the legal phrase 'trespass to chattel,' meaning 'to sell.'

Why has UCE become such a problem? Because each wave of UCE represents millions of small thefts, rather than a few large ones, and the cost and effort of pursuing any individual thefts are more than most internet users want to bear. Even so, the legal wave against UCE continues to grow. Examples of antispam legislation such as Washington State's new law mark the probably wave of the future.

Were spammers to have their way, they would lobby legislators into putting UCE on a footing roughly equivalent to junk mail. Despite the efforts of morally-deficient organizations such as the DMA (Direct Marketing Association), these efforts, long-term, are doomed to failure. Yet as long as money is being spent in an attempt to legalize these thefts, the battle must be fought. Recently, spammers have begun singing the praises of 'opt-out' advertising, which if allowed to become acceptable, amounts to extortion. 'Opt-out' offers no protection to the UCE recipient, and does not address the basic theft-of-services issue at the core of the 'spamming' debate. 'Opt-out' is cheap spin, nothing more.

Again, what does all this have to do with UUNet? Simple -- the spammers themselves are lawless, and have proven time and again that will do what they want, regardless of effect. But UUNet is an extremely large internet-focused corporation, and is subject to the higher moral standards that membership in the world's commercial and business communities demand. By refusing to do anything about their ongoing UCE problem, they have in effect condoned the practices . . . practices that have been shown to be illegal time and again when actually brought before a court of law.

Spammers will always exist, but proper action on the part of the internet community will increasingly force them into smaller and smaller backwaters, places where it will be easier to 'disconnect' them from the 'net at large. Spammers can have free speech, but they will eventually learn -- forcefully or not! -- that they can't force anyone else to listen to them; others have a very equal right to 'not hear.'

But for a major internet service provider to continue offering tacit support to illegal practices is unconscionable. UUNet has to date refused to act responsibly, to take steps to combat a growing 'net menace.

Protest against UUNet. Fight for your electronic rights. Let them know that you are offended every time that a solicitation, unwanted, winds up in your e-mailbox courtesy of their machines.