[ More information on SPAM ]

16 May 1998

Hon. Roger Wicker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Wicker:

I am a North Mississippi resident, and an active Internet user. I am writing to express my deep concern about current legislation concerning the practice of SPAMMING, i.e., unsolicited commercial junk e-mail.

I get several unsolicited commercial e-mail messages every day. Most are from fly-by-night companies offering multi-level marketing scams, pornography, or even spamming services and software. Many of these messages are excessively large, leading to unwanted increase in download time and storage space. Spammers send out literally millions of such messages, knowing that the greater share of the cost will be borne by the recipient, especially victims who pay for Internet service according to the size and number of messages. In North Mississippi we have a name for this: theft.

Can you remember, a few years back, when unsolicited commercial FAX transmissions were a problem? The passage of the Junk Fax law (47 USC 227) quickly put an end to the practice, by allowing victims to seek damages in small claims court. Most marketers don't even try to send junk faxes any more. Problem solved, and at minimal cost, since government agencies are not involved.

A similar approach is needed for SPAM or junk e-mail. Simply extend the provisions of the junk FAX law to cover unsolicited junk e-mail. The Netizens Protection Act, HR 1748, (sponsored by Chris Smith and 22 other representatives) does exactly this. I urge you to support this bill, which allows victims of SPAM to sue spammers.

Unfortunately, events in the Senate have complicated the picture. The Murkowski rider to S 1618, although it claims to be an anti-SPAM provision, actually increases the likelihood of SPAM, while setting up an unnecessary bureaucratic approach involving the FTC. Taking an "opt-out" approach, this would oblige SPAM victims to ask to be removed from each and every spammer's mailing list. Internet Service Providers oppose the Murkowski approach, because of overloaded lines and customer complaints:

• The Murkowski bill legitimizes SPAM, making it possible to legally deliver vast quantities of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) to all Internet users.
• The bill's valid header/address requirements pose little obstacle to delivering larger and ever-increasing quantities of UCE.
• The bill's removal requirements are little deterrent to millions of home-based, do-it-yourself junk e-mailers, and with government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as the sole enforcement body, the likelihood of meaningful enforcement is minimal.
• Even if all legal requirements are met, the bill will allow each of thousands of marketing organizations "one free bite" at every e-mail recipient, allowing citizens to legally be inundated with increasing volumes of UCE.
• The bill could be seen to preempt private rights of action based on state laws.

The Murkowski/Torricelli PRO-SPAM bill has just been introduced into the House of Representatives as part of HR 3888. I urge you to work to defeat this bill, which would make SPAM an even worse problem than it is already. The only people who understand the Murkowski bill and support it are the unscrupulous marketers who are currently enjoying a free handout by making consumers pay for their own advertising.

The Smith Bill, HR 1748, is the right thing to do. It is not "restraint of trade," but merely limits the theft of services that is SPAM. It is not a civil rights problem either--the Supreme Court has ruled that unwanted e-mail advertising is not "protected speech." The Smith bill does not create new regulations and new bureaucracies: it merely allows victims to defend themselves in small claims court. I urge you to support it strongly.

     Warren Steel

More information on SPAM:
General Information
Anti-Spam Campaign
Join the Fight Against SPAM
Forum for Responsible and Ethical Email