We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

What's the name and address of that idiot judge who re-loosed Sanford Wallace on the Netizens?

Rant on about how badly you need protection, but please remember that legislation never stops with the first law. Once you run crying to the gov that you need legislative protection from spam, you open the floodgates.

When the first law doesn't satisfy EVERYBODY (and no law can satisfy everyone), there will be more.

Also, the agency that oversees spams laws will continuously seek to find other aspect of e-mail or internet usage that they can regulate, because more laws mean more budget and power for their agency. And they will always spin it so that it appears to be in our best interests.

Sure, in your little corner, you think the world would be a better place if they just clamped down a little sit on spam. But the government is incapable of clamping down just a little bit. When they clamp down, the screws just keep getting tighter.

Consider your fogmaster example. Government has clearly shown that even in this area, the extent of their control cannot be limited. Today, government control has extended well beyond the fogmaster. People have been successfully sued by governmental bodies for painting their houses the wrong color. In one case a woman was fined for painting her fence THE WRONG SHADE OF WHITE!

IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT THE INTERNET AND E-MAIL TO COME TO???

Please, for the 'net's sake. Calm down.

You're obsessing about spam. Comparing spam to a loud car horn is nutty! E-mail does not wake me up. E-mail is more like a phone call with the ringer turned off and phone mail on. Yes, I have to listen to the message, but not even all of it. If I don't even know the caller (or e-mailer) I can just delete it. Your implication that someone has no right to e-mail another person scares me. Yes, spam can be annoying. But nonlegislative means can be used.

You are obsessing. Take some prozac. Wait a few years. Please don't invite the feds in, It's a mistake that can never be undone.

I expect the widespread public distaste for spam will lead to its eventual decline.

Non-smoking restaurants would exist in today's society even without legislation, because lots of people (customers) like dining in smoke free environments.

All legislation has done is take away the customers ability to help shape the marketplace through his spending habits. IS this what you want to internet to come to?

Use all the means you choose to influence spammers, but please don't saddle us with a whole new generation of law after law clamping down on whatever the latest whine from the public is.

Hey, what's all the fuss about junk email. It can't be any worse than all of the junk snail mail I have been dealing with all these years. With spam all I have to do is hit the delete key. With junk snail mail I have to throw that stuff in the trash and carry it to the curb. If we're going to pass laws against onsolicited mail let's start with the crap that gets stuffed into our mailboxes.

TV's have an off button- email has a delete button. They both provide the same function. Because of getting the 'government' involved, we now have automatic weapons fire-fights on TV, where nobody ever gets hit. So instead of exposing impressionable children to graphic violenc, we show them that they can fire a machine gun and it 'just makes noise!'

The battle to keep the internet free was just advanced in the Supreme Court, and to ask "Big Brother" to keep on trying is counterproductive - at best.

You seem to have been misled somewhere in your education. The Constitution of the United States is not a grant of rights, powers, privileges or immunities to the people of the United States it is rather a grant of powers, privileges and immunities by the people of the United States to a central authority. As such the First Amendment to that Constitution is a PROHIBITION of the excercise of any of the powers, etc. of that document abridging the freedom of speech.

Libel and slander are totally unrelated to the First Amendment as these are CIVIL suits between individuals or entities with the characteristics of individuals before the courts. There are several theories of both Trespass and Contract Law which afford essentially the same protection from unwarranted or undesired electronic mail or telephone communications. CRIMINAL penalties are the function of the government municipal, county, township, state, federal,etc. and when you seek to have statutory creation of remedies by these entities you are in essence giving them one more commodity for sale to the highest bidder.

I am opposed now as always to the creation of new powers for the federal government. If you want to create them in your state, have at it, but be assured I will make every effort to avoid entering your state!

Again, it's a worthy idea, but why must we have more legislation. You're right on in not putting restrictions on the 'spammer', but merely allowing the 'spammed' to seek redress and compensation. Is there a law in effect that says I can't seek compensation? If I want compensation, I'll seek it. No reason for a law allowing me to do something I'm not prohibited from doing in the first place.

One quick point. If the government does get involved, where does the funding for the involvement come from? There it is, a reason MANY politicians have been looking for. Tax the Internet...

Ask us, we know first hand: Minnesota (Land of 10,000 taxes)

Thank you for the wonderful service!
(Hope you're not selling this list)

You seem to forget that US legislation is in effect only in the United States. If anti-spam legislation is passed, you can be assured that spamford will move to, say, the Netherlands, and keep spamming. Internet is fortunately almost impossible to legislate.

I used to have AOL and constantly got Spammed for anything from sexual potency enhancers to discount-rate VISA cards. I dumped AOL, and connected with Erol's (a regional ISP), which does not allow Spamming. After one entire month, I have not received one unsolicited e-mail from anyone; execept from Erol's home office (service updates, etc.). I recommed Erol's to anyone on the East Coast who is able to get them hooked up via a local phone number. Check them out at <www.erols.com>. Peace!!

Who's to say what is and isn't spam? The government?

The technical solution to this problem is to automate a charge to people that want to send e-mail to your box. If everyone charged a tenth of a penny for each e-mail, spammers would be out of business.

Remember, use economics, not legislation!

The only way that I'll vote for any new legislation is if it legislates a smaller government; and I'll never ask for anything that may give the governnment a toehold on the internet. You are totally insane and living in a fantasy world if you think that the government will ever stop here.Pay attention to what is already happening with the encryption thing...I will NEVER ask the government into anything that has anything to do with the internet...not even to get rid of junk e-mail. It is the responsibility of the internet community to find a solution to this problem..not the government's. And don't even tell me this is constitutional..read the Constitution and tell me where it says anything about junk e-mail. Don't give me that garbage; only a liberal would make that statement.

You can't count on me to get the government involved, but you can count on me to help solve the problem the correct way..by doing it ourselves. I don't have the junk mail problem now that I've gotten off aol, but I'll help if you need help.

Cindy Hughes

This issue is largely one for Internet Service Providers to remedy, to the relief of their customers. It's up to them to solve the problem with technology, cleverness and court action. They are the ones losing money because of the hijacking of their systems to distribute spam. They should do more to sue offenders, to charge the cost of hijacked services to offenders, and to cut off connections to spam domains that do not take an active stance against spam. The government can use current laws to prosecute those who perpetrate fraud via e-mail. New legislation will do no good because spammers will move to other countries to continue their dirty work.

In addition to my previous comment, I wanted to note that those posting here are inviting spam by posting their e-mail addresses "in the clear." Spambot harvesters are known to read e-mail addresses from Web pages to add to their mailing lists. Disguise your e-mail address when you post it!

As one of the Co-Founders of CAUCE, (http://www.cauce.org), perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain why we are asking the government for help here.

How many of you have "replied and typed remove" to a spam, only to have it bounce from a non-existant address? How many of you have gotten forged spam that advertises some sex site? The point I'm trying to make is that the spammers, as a group, are irresponsible. They will NOT honor remove requests, they will NOT send e-mail that is not forged.

With the Smith bill, spams are essentially treated as junk faxes. Furthermore, it does not "create a new law", but simply makes 1 change to the existing junk fax law that includes e-mail. If you get spammed, under this new law, you can sue the spammer in small claims court for $500 PER SPAM. Furthermore, unlike the other two bills, this does not create any additional government, but places power into the hands of the citizens.

For instance, one of the other bills (Murkowski's, I think), says that if you are spammed, you must find other people who have also been spammed and file some sort of a class action lawsuit. What kind of nonsense is that?

Well, I guess I talked long enough. Feel free to visit the CAUCE website for more information on why the Smith bill is the best choice. If you have any questions or whatever, feel free to write me directly at dmuth@ot.com.

Read the comment at the bottom of the PAGE! Will hit my sentiments dead on. I hate spam but I would hate even more, having the government intrude on our last terrestrial frontier - Cyberspace.