As Congress debates proposed regulations governing unsolicited email – or "spam" – it should consider how these measures could harm the Internet. While new laws would not reduce spam, they would endanger the Internet’s unique civic and political structure and, consequently, its ability to promote freedom and democracy.
Electronic junk mail is among Internet users’ top concerns. Email boxes are frequently clogged with unwanted solicitations. And, while the enormous volume of spam costs its senders virtually nothing, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must collectively spend billions processing it. This translates into higher prices for consumers.
The House of Representatives is considering a bill intended to combat this problem. The Unsolicited Commercial Email Act (H.R. 718) would require all spam to be labeled as such, and to contain a valid address that recipients could use to opt-out of email lists. It also would require warning labels on sex-related email and allow individuals and ISPs to sue spammers who refuse to stop. A similar bill has been proposed in the Senate and, while these measures could limit free speech by dictating what types of mail are legitimate, anti-spam activists argue this is a small price to pay. The problem is, these regulations would have little real impact.
According to Scott Hazen-Mueller, chairman of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, the proposed legislation "will promote spam rather than stop it." First-time spammers could continue bombarding Internet users. Repeat senders could circumvent the law by routing their mail through offshore servers. Fortunately for Internet users, the private sector is finally developing products that bring real relief.
Brightmail, Incorporated’s "Anti-Spam Solution," for example, prevents more than 95% of unwanted messages from entering individual e-mailboxes. Currently in use at ISPs and portals such as Excite, the product redirects solicitations into a special junk mail folder that users can browse through separately – or ignore altogether. While this doesn’t reduce ISP costs, it does limit spam without hindering speech. Such innovations demonstrate why the ideal government policy would avoid spam regulations altogether.
In most cases, private-sector innovations yield the best solutions to Internet problems, and Brightmail proves that spam is no exception. As anti-spam products grow more efficient and widespread, they will prove more effective than regulation could ever be. While this fact alone should be enough to squelch new spam laws, Congress should also remember that leaving the Internet relatively unregulated will have a profound, positive impact on American society.
When regulations are kept to a minimum, society learns that, instead of turning to government whenever nuisances arise, it can develop solutions on its own. The Internet environment teaches this lesson to those who navigate it. Individual users know they must be vigilant and self-reliant in order to avoid fraud and other perils. Parents learn to manage and supervise their children’s time online. Private companies support this process by developing solutions that, if effective, promise profits. Because all of this occurs without government’s help, it promotes a responsible, innovative spirit that, as it permeates offline habits, will lead to a society that is more open and free.
While spam regulations alone would not reverse this trend, they would help introduce a new mentality onto the web. When government begins intervening, it creates the expectation that it will always step in. This expectation numbs individuals by distancing them from the need to police themselves. Congress can and should avoid this result by rejecting all but the most critical online regulations, thereby allowing the Internet to continue on a course that could guide us all into a brighter, more democratic future.
Justin Matlick is a Senior Fellow for the Center for Freedom and Technology at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
