Spam of a Different Flavor

In the past, people have objected to solicitation because it was overly personal. Watchtower dealt specifically with the question of door-to-door solicitation, and it was only because their method was so personal, I believe, that the plaintiffs succeeded. On the other hand, we object to spam email precisely because it is so impersonal. Unlike the Watchtower Jehovites, spammers rarely feel strongly about spreading an idea or recruiting members for a cause. Rather, they are commercially motivated, whether by legal means or through some kind of fraud, and the way they solicit reflects this. They do not care whom they reach, so long as a tiny fraction of these people respond and buy their product.

One worry with spam email regulation is that it will chill the speech of non-commercial groups like the Jehovites who also wish to reach the largest possible audience. In practice, however, this rarely takes place. Those who feel strongly about spreading the good word, or overthrowing the government, or whatever, tend to prefer the personal touch or simply lack the technological know-how to spam on a commercial level. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the religion even mandates this personal relationship. While I am intrigued by Alex’s prediction that “[m]ass emailing provides a remarkably powerful and inexpensive medium for small groups to promote their ideas”, I cannot remember the last time I received spam from a non-commercial enterprise without first requesting to be on the mailing list. It is in the interest of smaller groups to address a more selective and responsive audience. The obvious argument to the contrary, of course, is that the more people they reach, the more supporters they will find. By choosing to remain selective, however, small groups add to their legitimacy. I am much more inclined to engage with a group that does not harass me via unwanted email on a regular basis. Many groups have realized this themselves, I think, and therefore do not spam. Thus the regulation of non-commercial email in some states does not bother me as much as it seems to bother some of my classmates.

My question for this week is, “Is CAN-SPAM effective?” As of 2004, it wasn’t, according to this article. But I am interested to learn if anyone’s spam actually conforms to the model set out by the FTC. Mine doesn’t.