Virginia’s Attorney General is trying to override a ruling of that state’s highest court, which struck down an anti-spam law as violating the First Amendment. The law, as written, did not limit potential violations to the sending of purely commercial spam emails. Since the legislation made it possible to prosecute senders of, for example, bulk political emails, Virginia’s Supreme Court held that it was no good.
“[I]f the Federalist Papers were written today and disseminated by e-mail, the sender would be guilty of a felony under Virginia’s anti-spam statute.” (source)
What about that Algerian prince who keeps contacting me? Are his emails “political” speech, like the Federalist Papers?
Personally, I have a hard time accepting that the Framers intended that stuffing my Inbox with unsolicited communications, whether containing commercial speech, political speech, or otherwise, should be a fundamental right. The concept of Free Speech, as I understand it, is meant to protect one’s ability to express their own viewpoint and opinion, without fear of persecution. If someone doesn’t like my particular viewpoint, they should be able to ignore it by refusing to purchase the newspaper that features my editorial, or changing the channel, or simply not listening. The analogy to bulk email is imperfect; I cannot “ignore” or “refuse to accept” an unsolicited communication from a spam emailer. Unless I had “opted in” to receive The Federalist Papers as an email, I would not have wanted Madison and Hamilton sending me their political message.
I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.:
The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream.
I stayed up late to hear our newly elected president, Barack Obama, address the crowd that had gathered in Chicago’s Grant Park. I had mixed feelings about the landslide victory that I had watched unfold on Fox News for the several hours preceding his speech. On the one hand, I was frustrated to see my government slide further down the path towards a welfare state, all too willing to prop up those who are unwilling to do their share. On the other, I was oddly pleased to see an election that was not contentiously close, breeding polarization and animosity toward the successful candidate (i.e., year 2000 all over again). Even though I was part of the 46% of voters who chose John McCain, I still had a guarded awe and significant amount of respect for the united majority. I found myself believing, just for a moment, that such unity might come back to the country as a whole.
My internal division widened significantly as I listened, earlier in the evening, to the crowd in Arizona boo at McCain when he congratulated Obama for his win. I mentally scolded those conservatives for refusing to face the reality that their derision is futile and only hurts our chances for accord. I was doubly ashamed when the crowd in Chicago cheered for John McCain, when Barack Obama congratulated him for a well-fought campaign. My desire for a unified nation peaked when President Elect Obama promised, in his speech, to be a uniting force for this country. He promised to listen to those who disagree with him, especially when they disagreed. I have little trouble saying that I support him, if he can be taken at his word. I am more than a little wary, because he doesn’t have a real track record of bringing people together over their differences. From what I’ve seen, President Elect Obama’s community organizing experience has been entirely in bringing liberals together. He’s going to have to do more. He’s going to have to do better.
For the moment, as I have little choice in the matter, I am satisfied with giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. Don’t make me sorry, Mr. President Elect. I’m counting on you to recognize that, while a majority of the nation may have voted for you, you cannot summarily ignore the constituency that did not. You have a duty to us, too. You have a duty to all Americans, liberal or conservative, black or white, rich or poor. Please stay true to tonight’s message.
First off, I want to thank the Legal Satyriconistas for extending an invitation to me for a counterpoint to their recent endorsement of Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama. In today’s political landscape, where polarization is the norm, it is increasingly important that healthy, two-sided, rational debate be encouraged. Also, I apologize for violating the five-hundred-word suggested limit, but I’m not sure I could have expressed myself properly otherwise.
Unlike the Satyriconistas, I am unashamed to say that I cannot get past voting against a candidate. Like many presidential races before, this one presents two candidates, neither being outstanding, but one being completely intolerable – to me anyway. I lack Mr. Blevins’ conviction to vote for my ideal candidate; otherwise I would probably pull my metaphorical lever for Ron Paul, but throwing your vote away is not a constructive response to the current problem (sorry, Beef). I will absolutely be voting for John McCain on November 4th, but not because I agree with his stance on abortion (which I don’t), stem cell research (no, again), same-sex marriage (three times), or government bailouts of financial institutions (don’t get me started). I am voting for Senator McCain because I know what he stands for, whether I agree with him on everything or not, and he has a verifiable pattern of performance. I know where his moral compass points, and I feel confident that I can tell you what actions he would take in a variety of situations. I am voting against Barack Obama because I don’t know those things about Senator Obama, and the foreshadowing that is available downright scares the bejesus out of me.
