There will always be a few certainties about life and the way any given set of people will react in matters of circumstance.

     The works of many students of Human Behaviour and Modern Psychology, however, can only begin to touch the very surface of what is the human mind. Theories about behaviour, as educated as they may be, as much as they may seem to encompass the widest array of human behaviour, simply don’t.
     Recently, I stood looking at one such student, drunk off his ever-living ass, lying on the concrete, helpless. Being the Samaritan that I tend to be, I addressed him, and offered him a ride home. Rather than answer, he spat upon my shoe and screamed, “Don’t call me Sean!” Many of you can only imagine the urge I felt to kick him senseless…
     So screw you, too, Sean. You’re immortalised here. *evil grin*

     Past that…

     What most of the Jungs and Freuds of the world tried to do was give Humanity a goal — the unreachable state of being “Normal.” But Humanity, being ennobled with the wondrous gift of “free will” which makes us each Individual despite generalisations, breaks down all Sociological Theory at the very level it was intended to represent.

     Many students of this “craft” would disagree. If that’s your opinion, stop reading this now.

     And if you’re still reading, then you either agree, or I’ve ired you so that you feel you must read on. And this, of course, is one of those great Facts about humanity. It’s the same thing that makes the reactionary listen to Howard Stern Radio Show.

     Being flawed never stopped the theories of the book-smart, university-educated Doctors and Therapists from becoming the fad of the latter half of the twentieth century.
     Past the nineteen sixties, as people began to be more open about their Feelings, Drug Use, and Sexuality, psychology and sociology began to boom. Everyone had a problem, you see, as the definition of “normal,” at that time, had been written in the late nineteenth century.
     But at the end of nineteen seventies, the studies had begun an overhaul of sorts. The students of the sixties had gone through the change of society along with everyone else. As they gained their Doctorate degrees and tenureships, they began the follied attempt to redefine the phrase, “Normal Behaviour,” each one with a shadow of themselves within.

     Needless to say, new definitions begat an increasingly chaotic sort of work. All of the Simple Human Truths began to be questioned. And as the rates of violence and atrocity increased throughout the world, proportionate to the ever-growing population, Criminology, a subset of Sociology, began to take hold.

     All of sudden, Sociologists and Criminologist began to dominate the public mindset. From television talk shows to local Community meetings, they were around, giving their two cents about the same society they had spurned in order to take up their study. They were experts, you see, and no one dared to refute them.
     Even bigger than the problem of their withdrawal from society, however, was the simple fact that none of them had anything more than “theory” to work from. And with the help of Mass Media giving marketable credibility to their every unproven whim, the two fields became extremely chaotic.
     Soon enough, it became impossible, even for students in the fields, to decide what was Fact and what was Theory. Being educated, and unwilling to admit that perhaps Humanity was flawed, they began to accept each Theory as fact. Even current Sociological and Psychological textbooks attest to this very principle.

     Much as the Priests and Preachers of religion explained inexplicable scientific principles as the work of a supreme deity, so the Psychologists and Sociologists of the world continued to write their theories and improvable postulates. They all push forward in a vain attempt to explain the flaws in human nature, but few, if any, have the cajones to actually say “Hey, humanity is self destructive, and we’re just as nutty as the average Joe.”

     Perhaps it will come as no surprise that in 2573 A.D., a new church will be formed, having the icons of Saint Sigmund and Saint Carl upon its Platinum-encrusted doors.
     And no one should dare utter the Holy Name of the One True God in vain…

     “Forgive me, Doctor Shover, for I have sinned…”

     “Let me get this straight,” I argued with no pun intended. “You’re telling me that if I don’t go to this Sexual Harassment seminar of yours, then you’ll see to it that my employment here will be terminated?”
     “Absolutely!” she affirmed with righteous devotion.
     I sat there completely dumbfounded at the thought. It seemed completely illogical to force me to skip a day of work that desperately needed to be done so I could go to a seminar which has been proven to do nothing more than to decrease productivity because of increased tension between workmates of different sexes. I shook my head, closed my eyes, and out of my mouth came this noise which sounded remarkably like “Are you serious?”
     She keenly stared into my eyes, and with a condescending (translation: bitchy) tone of her own, said “Well, uhhh… Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.”
     “Look,” I started. I’m not going.” I continued on for a bit, explaining why I felt the way I did, and finally, I just came right out and said it. It was the mother-of-all comment about sexual harassment.

     The big one.

     It was a comment for which there could be no reply, one which guarantees an emotional response to one degree or another. It was the kind of comment that would assuredly evoke either hatred or laughter, depending on who one says it to. As I turned my attention back to my monitor, I knew precisely which response I had evoked from her.

     The silence was broken only by the sound of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck. I faced dead ahead, staring into my monitor, too afraid to turn back around.
     After a few minutes, I mustered enough courage to look back, deciding that it was a good time to go and get lunch. I was shocked to find that she was still standing there, her eyes narrowed to tiny slits, her face the darkest shade of crimson…

     “Oh, shit,” I thought to myself. “She is pissed off!”

     For the next ten minutes, I sat there paralysed with fear, sure that any sudden movement or attempts to leave would incur her wrath. I read through the corporate newsletter. I checked my e-mail and Lotus Notes. I checked my voice mail. To make a long story short (too late), I wasted as much time as I could with the narrow hope that she would go away and I could leave.
     And then it happened… The moment I most dreaded.

     Someone’s hand laid heavy on my shoulder. “Oh, shit,” I thought. “Here it comes!”

     I didn’t want to turn around, afraid that she might be pissed enough to whack me in the face with her clipboard. I tilted my head down, and noticed those finely manicured nails that had been painted the darkest maroon, attached to fingers and hands that could only belong to a woman…
     Cautiously, I swivelled about, wincing at the expected blow, all-the-while hoping that she would remain professional.

     But as I came full about, I was surprised to see my boss standing there quietly. I let out a heavy sigh of relief.

     “Ms. Grant says that you’re excused from Sexual Harassment class,” she mused. “How the Hell did you get out of that? What did you say to her?”
     “I, uhhh,” I stammered. “I thought she was still standing there.”
     “Why?” she asked. “Did you have words?”
     “Oh, well,” I stammered. “Nothing terrible, I’m sure. Why, what did she say?”
     “Just that she didn’t think you needed to be there,” she replied. “Looks like you’re the odd man out
     “Ahhh,” I sighed, relieved. “Lunch time, eh?”
     “Sure,” she smiled. “Where we going?”

     I’ve always had strong feelings about sexual harassment in the workplace. I’ve seen a lot of friends get hurt by it, and I’ve been made to feel quite uncomfortable a few times, myself.
     And then another time, in particular, I was framed for sexual harassment at another place I had been employed years before. A female coworker had insisted that her and I should have sex. After declining her offers on several occasions, she my told my boss (also a female) that I had been groping her in the office, constantly asking her for sex and threatening to get her fired.
     Her claims were found to be false, and not by any court decision, either. One day, as she came into my office to torment me as usual, she didn’t notice that someone was walking in right behind her. My boss, in fact, and saw the young woman walk up behind me and grab hold of my ass with both hands, and whisper “Why don’t you just do me right here in your office?”
     She was fired on the spot.

     But things are rarely that cut and dry.

     Sexual Harassment Seminars put on the workplace only further complicate the whole issue. They tell us that “staring, touching and saying anything so as to make a woman feel uncomfortable in the workplace is sexual harassment.”
     You see, those were the same things Anita Hill complained of Clarence Thomas. Women’s organisations all over the United States went bonkers when Thomas was exonerated.
     But then when President Bill Clinton did the same things, these same women’s groups stood by him, stating that it’s only sexual harassment if a woman’s job is on the line.
     Anita Hill was hero, and Paula Jones is a slut… One has to wonder why…

     These two specific issues illustrate that there are still a lot of grey areas about Sexual Harassment. Things seem to have been turned backwards and upside down since the problem first gained media attention in 1992, and all of this only goes to confused people even more.
     Before Anita Hill gave her testimony, no one really understood what sexual harassment was. Just when we thought we had a clue, the tables turned, the definition changed. At this point, according to the US legal precedent set in Jones v. Clinton, it’s perfectly legal for me to walk up to a female co-worker and say “Hey, hon, how about a hummer?”
     Terrible, isn’t it?

     When people don’t have to worry so much about what they say or do in the workplace, they can be more productive. In the corporations I’ve worked with that have had mandatory Sexual Harassment seminars, the number of complaints have increased sharply after the classes. Some say that this is because with education, people suddenly realise that they’re being harassed.
     While this may be true in a specific case or three, it’s definitely not the Absolute Truth as many would have you believe. It’s worth noting that two of my experiences were in female-dominated offices. No man would dare come into one of them with sex in mind, because he would most assuredly lose some vital portions of his anatomy. In these two places, the seminars did nothing but further somewhat antagonistic attitudes towards the few men in the office. Needless to say, it made doing our jobs a lot hard.. err.. more difficult.

     I don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression here. I’m not altogether against Sexual Harassment seminars. On the contrary! I think they should made a part of Leadership Sensitivity Seminars instead of being separate entities. These seminars basically teach employees and management not to be Racist Homophobics and work together as a Team. I think they’re a good thing. Adding Sexual Harassment to that mix tells your employees not to be Racist Homophobic Perverts and work as team. That’s an even better thing.
     But by themselves? It’s hard to fill up an entire hour talking about Sexual Harassment without getting peoples’ backs up. And the fact remains that most of the people teaching these seminars seem to forget that women in the office can be just as bad, or even worse, than the raunchiest of men.

     For me, it all comes down to two things… If everyone were more interested in doing their job instead of standing around the office talking about “the chick with the big tits,” or “the new guy with the great butt,” or looking for new ways to be offended, things would be a whole lot different.

     And the second? Well, it’s like I told Ms. Grant…

     “Look, I realise there are men in this company who think ‘harass’ is two words. I’m not one of them.”

     Thank God these kids haven’t gotten off yet.

     Maybe you’ve seen some blurb about it on the news wherever you are. Four “adults” and two “teenagers” killing three people and leaving another with a bullet in his head.

     You wouldn’t think much of it, of course. This sort of thing happens ever day in America. I guess that’s why if you go to AltaVista, you come up with only a few occurrences of one of the victim’s names.
     Joseph L. Risner, 20. Edward D. Mullins, 19. Natasha W. Cornett, 18. Crysta R. Sturgill, 18. Karen R. Howell, 17. Jason B. Bryant, 14. All from Kentucky.

     Kids.
     On Sunday, April 6th, 1997, they attempted to kill four people. No big deal, I’m sure. Happens every day. Six kids go out, and kill three people, and leave one barely alive with a bullet in his head.

     Just kids.
     Your normal, average teenagers. Another “tragic tale of youth gone wild in America.” Nothing to worry about whatever.
     The two under the age of 18 are being tried as adults. Three counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. But it’s no big deal. At least it wasn’t four counts of first degree murder, right?

     You know, just kids.
     All six of them. Out joyriding in their victims’ car after they left them dead and dying in a ditch in Baileyton, Tennessee, just a mile off of interstate 81.
     The worst thing the two “youngsters” will ever face is life without parole. Being juveniles, they’re too young to face capital punishment for a childish mistake, aren’t they?

     Because they’re just kids.
     Arrested April 8th in Douglas, Arizona by U.S. Customs agents as they tried to make their way to into Mexico. There was some squabble about extradition for a few days, and finally everyone was back in Greene Co., Tennessee to be arraigned for trial.

     Just some kids…
     That’s all. No more, no less. Just some remorseless, evil little shits who grinned and smiled for the camera, acting like nothing at all had happened. They were cold and calm. Completely uncaring.
     They’re from broken homes. They were brought up badly. Their father/mother/aunt/uncle was an alcoholic. They were sexually molested as children. The Devil made them do it. It wasn’t their fault. Oh, no.
     And as faithful followers of Brother Bill Clinton and the ACLU, it’s our moral, American responsibility to feel sorry for them and abolish the Death Penalty, isn’t it?

     Because they’re just average kids!
     They made a bad judgement call. They need to be felt sorry for, and rehabilitated, and made into productive members of society again.

     Hmmm… how about a dose of REALITY?

     A whole family.
     Vidar Lillelid, 34. Delfina Lillelid, 28. Tabitha Lillilid, 6. Peter Lillelid, 3. They were driving from home from a religious function when they ran into the aforementioned “model citizens” who are on trial for this brutal crime.

     Tabitha and her brother Peter were still alive when officers found them at 8:45PM. She died the next afternoon at 12:05PM. Her three-year-old brother, with a bullet in his head, held onto life. He will never, ever recover fully from that injury. After being discharged from the hospital, he was awarded custody to his father’s family in Sweden.

     I’ve never been much for Capital Punishment, either, but how the Hell can anyone feel sorry for these six kids who killed a family, and just for the Hell of it?!
     Their lawyers have pulled every trick in the book to get everyone to feel sorry for them. And the final straw was today… the day they claimed the youngest one is the one who actually shot and tried to kill the entire family.
     I only hope the jury is competent enough to realise that even if he is the one who did do it, the other five didn’t care much, or else they would’ve done something other than make off with thier victims’ vehicle.

     Fucking murderers.

UPDATE! 13-Mar-98 – 19:00 (EST)

     Risner, Mullins, Cornett, Sturgill, Howell, and Bryant have received two sentences. Life Imprisonment Without Parole, and 25-Years for the attempted murder of the three-year-old, Peter. To be served consecutively.
     This situation … It’s a travesty. Those six nooses from the picture above well-illustrated the general feeling of most of the people around here. They were put up last May, if I remember correctly, by a convenience store owner. He was ordered to take them down because of their proximity to an elementary school.
     I can’t help but think that if they had been allowed to stay up, and the parents and teachers had to explain to these children what these screwed up teenagers did, and exactly why people felt that they should die for their crimes, then there might be one-hundred eighty some odd children in East Tennessee who wouldn’t grow up to be complete and utter pricks with no regard for human life.

     If life wasn’t good enough for a mother and father, a six-year-old and a three-year-old, then why should it be any good for the ones who killed three of them and left the other clinging to life with an injury from which he will never recover?

     Now the American people get to pay for the rooms, meals and security measures that house these six murderers for the rest of their lives.

     Is it just me, or does it seem a terrible waste of money?

     “Oh, but there’s been too much killing,” said one person close to the Lillelid family.
     “That’s just desperation talking,” said another.

Photos copyright © 1997 & 1998 Knoxville New-Sentinel, a Scripps-Howard company. reprinted with permission.

     It is hereby decreed that the word “Pospita” shall enter the English language on this day, the Seventeenth of November in the year Nineteen Hundred Ninety-Seven.

“What the f@#$ is a pospita?”
— Norm Daniels, IT Technician for Plasti-Line, Inc., 17-Nov-1997
 

pos·pi·ta Pronunciation Key: (pôs-pë’-tə)
(n.)

1. Something considered disgusting, of poor quality, foolish, or otherwise totally unacceptable: That is a pospita!
2. Something considered extraordinary, as in disagreeableness, size, intensity or utiliy: What a complete pospita!

(adj.)

1. Relating to, or being, a pospita: What kind of pospita idea is that?

---

Word History: A combination of the acronyms POS (“piece of shit”) and PITA (“pain in the ass”) used to describe a series of faulty Compaq™ workstations purchased by a manufacturing facility in 1997. The workstations in question would, at any given interval, lose connection to both the PS/2 and Mouse, giving the impression that the machine had locked up, when in fact, it had not. No BIOS update was ever provided for these machines, nor was a motherboard replacement offered by Compaq™, despite the company in question have a support agreement with both the Vendor and Manufacturer of the items. Frustrated technical support began referring the items as “pospita.” 

“Yeah, that’s pretty sexy…”
— Brian Huskey, IT Analyst for Plasti-Line, Inc., 17-Nov-1997

     First off, I am totally against this so-called US “anti-Spam legislation.”

     This stance may piss off quite a few would-be Mark Steel fans out there, but before you make up your mind that I’m a complete ass, please read the reasoning behind why I’m against it.

     I’ve been thinking about the issue of “Spam” quite a lot after writing this page on the 30th, and I’ve had a bit of a change of heart regarding the issue of New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith’s H.R. 1748, the so-called “Netizens Protection Act of 1997.” Without linking to the Bill itself, and to the sites supporting it, there is no way for me to objectively tell you why I am against this legislation.
     As well, I decided to change this page entirely. Yes, I admit, it was a bit too inflammatory. Those of you who responded nicely about the issue are thanked, beforehand.
     And after reading your reading your letters, now I wish to rebuff a few arguments. You see, I’ve read your reasoning, and it still doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. This proposed law will make some changes, but not in the manner that most of you think. A lot of you who responded were not looking at the “Big Picture,” so here’s a bit of it for you.
     I am in no way claiming that this is the entire “Big Picture,” but it’s assuredly a lot larger than what most of you bothered to think about. I think I’ve addressed every issue that was brought up. If I missed something, e-mail me again. Be nice about it and I’ll cover it, too.

     One of my core political beliefs stems from reading way too much of the works of certain “founding fathers of America” like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. You see, I was a history buff as a child. I admit that the older I get, the more I forget. But I do remember that all of them stuck to a single idea. I think Henry David Thoreau stated it most eloquently in his paper, “Civil Disobedience.”

     “That government is best which governs least.”

     The United States Code Title 47, Section 227 is an Amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, and looking at the proposed law, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. However, thanks to the number of Lawyers in D.C. posing as Elected Officials, things have to be spelled out specifically, or else they’ll leave, as they say, a loophole by which a violator can prevent him or herself from being prosecuted.

     The unfortunate fact of the matter is, when you spell things out explicitly in a law, you leave more loopholes for “extenuating circumstances.” These days, people are much less concerned with the “spirit of the law” and much more concerned with the “letter of the law.” Proof of this is in the Clinton/Gore campaign scandal, and the bipartisan agreement that Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson’s council give up the fight. It doesn’t make Clinton innocent, but that’s another story altogether…

     The enforceability of H.R. 1748 is in question for several reasons. A lot of you have complained about Usenet messages in our correspondence, but let me be the first to inform you that this law does not, in any way, shape, form or fashion, address anything with regards to Usenet and newsgroups. It only addresses the issue of Unsolicited Commercial E-mail.

“Our own stats indicate that almost 80% of Usenet and 20% of email is nothing but Spam. Obviously this is a major drain not only on our infrastructure but everyone else’s as well. It must stop…”
– Ed Kelley, AT&T WorldNet Service Customer Care, Forums Manager

     That being said may change a lot of your minds by itself. If not, keep reading. Oh yes, there’s more. Lots more.

     One of the largest problems on the Internet is that it’s often hard to tell where a Spammer is from and to whom he or she is sending these messages, regardless of whether or not Section 227(d)(1)(C) is amended as proposed. Logic would hold that since this will become of issue only within the United States, the Bill cannot address the problem of International Spam.
     You may think that’s all fine and good, that the majority of Spam does come from inside the United States. But supposing this Bill does become Law, there is nothing to stop an American from putting a machine at a remote location anywhere in the world, and running all Spam and business through that country. The violator can still be a silent partner, still reaping the profits of his labours.
     Many people say “Oh, no, that kind of thing is too costly for most Americans.” They are incorrect in that assumption. All they have to do is build a simple machine, ship it somewhere in the world for around $60 US, and put it on the subnet of a willing Internet provider. The average cost for this type of venture is around $200 US, not including business registration by their “partner,” of course. Giving the provider a percentage of the profits reaped by this “business,” the need for business registration and paperwork can be overlooked entirely.
     Discarding that, no company in the United States is barred from using any “advertising company” they wish. This proposed law only affects the spammer, and not the company they’re “marketing for.” Nothing stops a would-be business owner, who wishes to market his company in the United States, from going to a Spammer in some other country and having them send these “unsolicited advertisements.” This section of the proposed law states that the “identity of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message” and their respective contact information must be listed “at the beginning” of the “unsolicited advertisement.” This does not, however, disqualify the foreign entity from promoting anyone they wish. The promoted company will be held without guilt, as the foreign Spammer, being a marketing company, was actually responsible for the Spam. And to make matters worse, not only can they not be prosecuted because they are a foreign entity, they complied explicitly with the proposed Law.

     Bad loophole, isn’t it?

     Thanks to the “letter of the law,” the wording of Section 227(b)(1)(D) creates a problem in itself, and I can think of no way to rectify it. As Internet Providers gain more and more users and the domain name registration databases grow larger and larger, a simple typographical error on the part of an “advertiser” will not necessarily be returned as undeliverable – it’s likely to actually go *to* someone.

     As far as adding “knowingly” to the first line (“…to knowingly send…”), that seems a good idea, but as the violator will most assuredly say “I didn’t know” in his defence, he will be found innocent of “knowingly” sending the Spam except my a massive preponderance of evidence.

     Regarding the current U.S.C. Title 47, Section 227 — it’s quite tough for an individual or company to find anyone to take action against a violator. The burden of enforcement for these laws falls under the umbrella of the FCC. Your liaison used to be the Public Service Commissions in your respective states, however, many states are doing away with them. Even if this new Bill becomes Law, who will you call to report the incident?
     And even if you do find someone to take your claim and begin to help you get your damages, it’s impossible to *force* anyone to *pay* the amount of the rendered judgement. Many people will say things about “Oh, well, having a default of several thousand dollars on their credit report won’t look too good!” You’d probably be amazed to know how many of your elected officials have filed bankruptcy. I guess proponents of this line of thinking aren’t aware of the current laws regarding Bankruptcy, which can effectively erase any sort of “bad marks” on their credit except for the bankruptcy declaration itself. There are plenty of institutions out there to loan money to recent bankruptcy filers and if you want to know about your credit history, visit this credit rating guide from a popular logbook loan website. So what’s that going to hurt?

     People just don’t think about what laws cost. There’s all that time that it’s just a Bill, being passed about amongst elected officials, taking up time and taxpayer money. And then when it’s passed, there is additional time and effort spent writing up informational and educational materials for those who are planning to enforce the law. Then additional government funding must go to the enforcement groups responsible for upholding the law. And it’s never enough… They always need more.
     And then there’s the already overcrowded court system (not to mention the jail system). Think of all the petty lawsuits this bill will create. Think of how much wasted time and money will go to that. Think about how much each court member has to be paid to try the case. You go to court, you’re probably going to be taking up the time of at least twenty people. Figure twenty people at an average of about $9 US an hour. Add up each employee who has anything to do with this case, and the time it will take each one of them, singularly to do their job. Figure around five hundred hours spent on each case. Multiply your hours times your average rate. Now think of this from a nationwide standpoint. Use a conservative figure, like maybe one hundred petty cases per month. There are twelve months in a year. The sum to your American court system, just for the small, petty lawsuits… Only $5,400,000 US.
     And that’s a very conservative figure. Americans, as we have to admit, are litigation crazy. I would venture to say that this conservative estimate of $5,400,000 US will more like be $54 Million US in the first six months of enforcing the law.
     And how much of that money does the court get back? Just the sum of their court costs and paperwork fees, which never amounts to enough to support them.

     So, now… What if HR 1748’s amendments *are* passed … Will the FCC hold the burden of responsibility for this law, or will a new Enforcement body be created? Will the costs of enforcement be offset by taxing your Internet usage, or will they simply raise your US Federal taxes more?

     Do you complain about your taxes? Do you support this bill?

     If you answered “yes” to both questions, I can’t help but wonder what logic brought you there.

     Especially if, after reading this article and Bill in question, you are still under the mistaken impression that UCE will be “illegal.” It isn’t. This Bill only gives you the “right” to sue a spammer, which is ridiculous at best. At last check of the US Civil Law System, you can sue anyone for any reason at any given time you wish in a Civil Court, right?

     I have been using the Internet for many years now, and feel that this type of Invasion into what is largely a private sector, International body is unwarranted. I have no quarrel that unwanted e-mail and Usenet messages are a problem — I hate them, as well. But this a problem which can be taken care of in the Private sector without government intervention.
     Proof of this is in Aegis.net’s disconnection of one CyberPromotions, Inc. Since CyberPromo’s denial of service, as well as quantcomm.com and a few others (which have brought up legal issues regarding contract violations), the amount of Spam in my mailbox has decreased astoundingly. Before these denials of service, I was getting a solid ten messages a day of e-mail Spam. Now I get two or three a week.

“Spamming is the scourge of electronic-mail and newsgroups on the Internet. It can seriously interfere with the operation of public services, to say nothing of the effect it may have on any individual’s e-mail mail system … Spammers are, in effect, taking resources away from users and service suppliers without compensation and without authorization.”
— Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President, MCI

     If more companies were willing to use their right to enforce Terms of Service Agreements and Acceptable Use Policies, and to refuse service to these companies and individuals responsible for Spam, the problem would simply not need to be addressed by any Government.

     One of the other, similarly annoying things about the supporters of this bill is some of the supporters, themselves. Many of them showed so much defiance last time an Internet-related Bill came up. Remember all those pages, white on black, bearing the Blue Ribbon of the EFF? Remember all those people saying “Keep your laws off my Internet!” over and over, and having candlelight vigils to the Death of Free Speech on the Internet when the Communications Decency Act was initially passed? Why on Earth are they now running back to the US Government for help about spam, when they spoke out so fervently against the intrusion before?
     Not all Spam is for-profit — much is passed around from the same well-meaning idiots trying to promote a cause. That being that, I can’t help but wonder if some peoples’ idea of Free Speech and Expression is strictly limited to anything that doesn’t annoy them. If that’s the case, they should be ashamed of themselves.