It's OK to hijack your browser

[YoKenny]

Judge Rebuffs Legal Challenge to Pop-Up Ads

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ch_popups_dc_5

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:59:51 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Jack
<see.sig@below.my.post> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:40:46 GMT, "YoKenny" <YKnot@home.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Judge Rebuffs Legal Challenge to Pop-Up Ads
> >
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ch_popups_dc_5
> >
>
[snip]

Geez, Louise... Another fscking moron in a black robe. <grrrrrr>

--> "While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems
--> like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the
--> computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded
--> WhenU's computer software from the Internet," Lee said.

Yeah, like the victims really give fully informed and willful consent to
drive-by downloads. Sheesh!

--> Judge Lee acknowledged that pop-up ads are often troublesome and
--> annoying. "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising
--> along with her ugly brother unsolicited bulk e-mail, 'spam', as a
--> burden of using the Internet," he wrote.
-->

W-R-O-N-G-!!!

Unsolicited bulk e-mail ("spam") is *already* expressly illegal in 20-odd
states, *and* has been held by various Federal Courts to be Theft by
Conversion and Trespass to Chattels. *NOBODY* is EVER required to "endure"
it.

That judge is a clueless jackass who desperately needs to be pointed to
both:

CompuServe Incorporated v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace
Case No. C2-96-1070 (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 1997)(Graham, J.)
<http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case214.cfm>

and from the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any
unwanted communication, whatever its merit. The ancient concept that 'a
man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has
lost none of its vitality. We therefore categorically reject the
argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise
to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition
operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no
one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and
subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be
captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops
at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT.,
397 U.S. 728 May 4, 1970.


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -