Spam is not free speech

The internet is very possibly the greatest technology invented in the 20th century (yes, including manned flight), but as it has evolved into the worlds largest shopping mall / school yard there have been some undesirable additions. Spam isn't the worst of these, but it is symptomatic of the worst: the commercialization of EVERY aspect of people's lives.

The worst kind of spam, IMO, is spam text messages because, bluntly, I should not have to pay for someone's stupid insurance advertisement. Or a political one. Which brings me to ccAdvertising, which not only is trying to get spam filters declared illegal (as an infringement of their free speech rights, because they apparently can't read), but had the nerve to declare "it is proper that recipients bear some cost of unsolicited political speech sent to their cell phones". Yes, America, it has come down to this - some people are so sleazy, they actually said this in a public document. It can be seen (and for a short while commented on) via the FCC. 

Now, it happens that I actively hate advertising. It's emotionally manipulative, it's crass, it's shallow, and it's annoying. Obviously, I'm not one of those people who watches the Super Bowl to see the commercials. I can accept, though, that many people are weird enough to confuse their personal identity with what brands they use. I cannot accept, however, being harassed on my cell phone (or, indeed, on my landline) by advertisers. I pay for these services, so I should be able to control who uses them - pretty basic principal. If I pay for a car and someone drives off in it without my permission, it's theft. I see use of my phone lines without permission in precisely the same way. 

Which brings me to the whole "violation of a company's constitutional rights" thing. Newsflash, the first amendment doesn't guarantee absolute freedom of speech - it prohibits Congress (the federal government) from restricting individual rights. Specifically, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It doesn't say that advertising under the guise of speech can be forced on people against their will by a private company. Nor does it say that a private individual cannot refuse to listen to your speech (which is, in essence, what spam filters and the Do Not Call list do). I can only hope that there is enough sanity left in this country that this odious, vile, thieving excuse for a company is soundly slapped down.

Also, companies like Amazon (and, yes, Google) need to think about how they profile people. For example, 8 years ago now, some friends and I were pulling together some gifts for a friend that included some of her favorite books - romance novels. I am not a fan of the bodice ripper genre. Never was. And ever since, Amazon insists on recommending these dreadful books for me. I've gone in and told their algorithm that these stupid books were gifts, told it I wasn't interested in any of its selections, etc. yet these things are apparently ineradicable. So, I've started tagging all of Amazon's steamy-novel-filled adverts as spam. I love to read, and am a very regular Amazon customer, but they would get a lot more business if they gave me recommendations that there was a snowballs chance in hell that I might actually, well, enjoy.