NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the forum for members of SMS to debate the UN resolution: Freedom From SPAM Act.

Region members please post your opinions regarding this resolution. The desire is that pertinent concerns, questions and comments regarding the resolution be raised. However, please keep in mind that now that this is a resolution we are in no position to modify or refine it; only approve or reject it. Once you have decided on your stand on the resolution, to place your vote, state your position clearly YEA or NAY.

Balligomingo's position is NAY. We feel while SPAM is not a good thing (Our region in fact has a zero tolerance stance in the region's message board) it is not an activity that is black and white. Since the resolution does not have a clear definition of infractions it applies to, we feel it has the potential to hinder free speech and levy excessive fines. It is also our stance that the UN should assist with global macro issues. Resolutions of this nature are doomed to be rejected since they micromanage the internal affairs of nations. This resolution would have been helpful had it assisted nations with the international aspect of controlling spammers outside their borders.

Your thoughtful participation will be welcomed.

Jubal Jr. Balligomingo - Legal Council, SMS - UN delegate

Psylos' position is NAY, because the resolution goes too far by trying to cure the consequences of a desease without taking into account the root cause of the desease and actually making it worse.

We believe the root cause is the freedom of privacy. We believe the people should have the right to not have their email appear in a database without their consent as it is done in Psylos. BUT, once the appearence of the email in the database has been agreed, the organisation should have the right to send any material as they want as the citizens have the right to ask for the removal of their name from the database. I don't know if I'm clear but this resolution is harmful because it removes a freedom from the sender of emails while not protecting the receiver who has already agreed to appear in a database, implicitely agreeing to receive emails. The receiver has the right to be removed from the database and is already protected from abuse of mail box, therefore this resolution is useless and harmful to the sender.

I hope I'm clear, although it is friday afternoon, and I have some difficulties expressing myself in english today. Sorry if I'm not.

The Nomadic People of Black Kettle believe that SPAM is offensive and unnecessary. Individuals should have freedom to speak their opinions, but Companies engaging in commerce should not have the right to invade an individual's privacy to be able to conduct business.

Since the resolution allows for Companies to contact those who have subscribed to receive communications, and only prohibits them from contacting those who have not subscribed, we vote YEA on the proposal.

The fines are quite large, and we see this as a strong deterrent for anyone wishing to send SPAM.

Black Kettle Speaks.