Faxes and spam

The FCC has fined Fax.com, Inc. 5.4 million dollars for faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers.

From the article:

The commission said it rejected arguments from Fax.com that the ban on unsolicited faxes was unconstitutional and that the fine was excessive.

Whether or not the fine was excessive, their activities are not protected by the Constitution. You see, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "speech paid for by others against their will." When someone sends a junk fax, the recipient pays a significant portion, if not the majority, of the total cost in the form of electricity, paper, and toner. In addition, there's the cost of having their fax machine tied up receiving ads so it can't receive legitimate faxes.

When I get junk mail via the US Postal Service, I'm not paying anything to receive it. The sender has incurred the full cost. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if junk mail helps keep postal costs down for everyone else since it must represent a large amount of income for the USPS. Therefore, I don't mind receiving it, especially since I get a credit on my waste collection bill based on the weight of my recyclables.

Spam email has the same problems as junk faxes. If anything, the sender pays even less of the total cost. The cost to get the email to me is paid, in succession, by every system it passes through. And, ultimately, it's the consumers of Internet access that have the costs passed on to them. It is for this reason that I believe the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which gave the FCC authorization to enact rules about junk faxes, should be extended to cover spam email. The analogy between junk faxes and junk email is nearly exact.