Few of us are in favor of spam. In fact, most of the online and offline discussion about unwanted email is from or about people who are fed up with finding obnoxious or viral-infected messages from strangers email in their inboxes. And allmost no one on the Internet is surprised that recent studies indicate more than 80% of all email messages are unwanted.

But as with global warming, amid all this consensus that spam is a bad thing there are few voices claiming it is protected under the "right of free speech."

Hooey!

It's only spammers -- like Jeremy Jaynes of Raleigh, who has been convicted of spamming and sentenced to a long jail term for his criminal activities -- claiming that the millions of unwanted messages they spray indiscriminately all over the Internet are "protected". And they make this claim only after they've been caught -- like Jeremy -- and taken to court for their obnoxious and intrusive activities.

I'm pretty confident, by the way, that even these people don't buy these arguments. Look at the situation in the context of past Civil Rights and other Free Speech battles: If the professional spammers are so sure it's kosher to send email to people who haven't asked for them, why do they go to so much trouble to disguise their own identities and the true origins of their spam? Did Rosa Parks wear a mask when she refused to give up her seat in the front of that Montgomery, Alabama city bus? And if they're so principled about having the "free speech" right to send these messages, why don't they proactively stand up and fight for what they believe in, instead of sneaking around and exercising their "right" to spam only in secret? Why don't they take a page from the American Indian Movement, which occupied the town of Wounded Knee in February, March, and April of 1973 to make its case for Indian rights?

What's more, if all they're trying to do is create a solid basis for a legal battle that proves spam is truly free speech, why do they go to the trouble and expense of sending a billion emails that inconvenience millions of people and clog up the Internet? They really need to send only one. But certainly one thousand messages would be more than enough to provide a basis for a legal battle over whether spam is truly free speech, or unwanted junk.

But spammers not going to stand up for any of these claims. These claims are made only by their criminal defense lawyers, and only in the context of a spammer's criminal trial. Spammers don't believe they have a right to spam the rest of us any more than bank robbers believe they have a right to take all the cash out of a neighborhood bank at gun point. They just do it for selfish gain. And when they get caught, they use every argument they can to wheedle out of being punished for what they've done.

That's why the best response to spammers is not to contribute to their legal defense funds, or sign petitions supporting their civil rights, but simply to put locks on our inboxes the same way we put locks on our cars to protect us from car thieves, and locks on our doors to protect us from burglars.

Right now, the simplest and best lock for your email inbox happens to be Enterto's "Enterprise Ready" Email System Version 2.0, which is available free of charge at http://mail.enterto.com/signup.html. It's easy to use, and it stops all spam, of every type, from any source.

Until spammers disappear, the best thing to do prevent them from harming you and those you care about. After all, they can't spam you if they can't find you. And that's what EnterTo email does.

About the Author

I like to write about the web. I'm based in San Francisco.