ASU vs. change.org: Spam or Free Speech?
Written by Malcolm James on February 9, 2012
When we talk about the evils of spam, it’s easy to get people on board with it because no one’s going to disagree with the simple premise that spam is bad. It’s like getting people to chime in on Mondays, broccoli and every Hollywood sequel ever made outside of The Godfather Part II. Of course they’re going to agree that it’s bad. Evil. Taboo. The enemy. But what if it wasn’t so black and white? What if one person’s spam was another’s panacea? Where do you draw the line? Who draws it? Suddenly, the idea that spam is a cut and dried discussion might fall a little flat, if exactly what spam is becomes a contentious issue.
Case in point: Arizona State University (ASU) – the hallowed institution located in Phoenix, Arizona, which recently chose to block all incoming emails from the petition website change.org. A popular site that’s gained a head of steam recently with the Occupy Wall Street movement, change.org’s mission seems to be to enact social change through online petitions. Apparently, ASU isn’t impressed enough with the site’s mandate to let it slip when email began flooding the institution’s inboxes. According to local newsmagazine DowntownDevil.com:
“A statement released by ASU spokeswoman Julie Newberg said ASU began blocking messages from the website in December after discovering it was a source of spam emails.” According to Newberg, “Although the individual who sent the email may not consider himself a spammer, he acquired a significant number of ASU email addresses, which he used to send unsolicited, unwanted email, which is the definition of spam.”
There’s little sense in disagreeing with Ms. Newberg on the definition of spam, but the university’s actions beg the question of whether this action against a seemingly benevolent organization is a breach of free speech. More so, can this action be deemed a form of censorship? Before you weigh in, consider this:
“Newberg also said ASU is blocking all outbound connections to the change.org server. ASU routinely blocks servers to reduce risk to students, faculty and staff, Newberg said, but no examples of websites ASU has blocked other than change.org had been provided by Thursday evening.” Newberg goes on to say that “[ASU respects] the rights of all individuals to express their opinions…however, we must reserve the right to protect the use of our limited and valuable network resources for legitimate academic, research and administrative uses.”
Exactly how change.org is a risk to students, faculty and staff is unclear, but even the most closed minded among us must concede that this action by the university goes beyond the realm of simple email spam filtering and begins to trod on the toes of a scorched earth policy. If one petitioning web domain represents a threat to the university’s bandwidth, maybe the ASU Board of Governors should consider blocking Facebook and YouTube while they’re at it. Hey, it’s just a suggestion.
In a bit of an Ah-HAH! Moment, the article divulges a few tidbits that help piece together what may be happening here:
“A Tumblr blog post on Dec. 7, 2011, accused ASU of censorship and blocking the freedom of expression of students, staff and faculty. The post read, in part, ‘Not only is this outrageous, but it is a violation of First Amendment rights of both ASU students as well as the rights of Change.org.’ The Tumblr post claimed ASU blocked change.org because of a petition created by ASU students called ‘Arizona State University: Reduce the costs of education for Arizona State University students.’”
Ah, a petition on reducing costs to students. Is it really conceivable that the institution blocked a single domain because of a petition? It hardly seems likely. Possible, however, is that the university rushed to judgment in declaring change.org a purveyor of spam. What do you think?
Loading ...
The university is a company (perhaps some state funding etc) so they have the right to block spam to the ASU mailboxes. Thay own the domain. They did not say that they are blocking to the folks home/personal e-mail addresses. They are not stopping communication from this domain, only to theirs.
For whatever it may be worth, my spam filter already considers change.org a spammer because they apparently got a bad mailing list for our company and had too many blocked for bad addresses.
An organization may be good at heart, but if they are using spam techniques….they are still spammers.
This is ridiculous. If change.org is sending unsolicited emails, whether it’s for male enhancement pills or to feed starving children, it’s spamming. By all means, feel free to sign up for their updates and take part in social change, but spam is spam, and there’s no prettying it up in the name of a good cause.
There’s a boundary between spam and free speech, and I think change.org has crossed that demarcation line. Even if your organization or company is engaged into doing something good or with a cause, it does not give you permission to send unsolicited email messages. Heck, even if you’re the Metropolitan Cathedral or the Pope, you have no rights in engaging to all types of spam activities. This should be a blessing in disguise for us all. We should learn something from this.
@Kevin
Are you the Kevin I used to know who worked for Coca-Cola? Of course you’re not, but a shout-out to you either way. I must agree with you on this one. There’s no acceptable precedent that opens the door for unsolicited spam. Unsolicited is unsolicited. Here endeth the lesson.
Found this post by searching charge.org +spam. I’m getting spam from them as well. Yes, SPAM. You don’t get a pass on the law or having some manners because you’re liberal as this article is seeking to imply.
So yeah, I’m all for supporting a variety of liberal causes. BUT… the trouble with Change.org is that they tend to throw you on a very spam-like mailing list for simply signing a petition or two on their site.
If it were an email or newsletter sent once every week or so highlighting some causes, that might be excused. But seriously, I know I don’t have the time or attention to sift through the literal BUTTLOAD of emails that a simple petition signing netted into my inbox.
I’ll say in their favor that there did seem to be a process for taking oneself off their mailing lists. Still, expecting people to deal with that kind of hassle just because they signed a petition. It’s not a very good way for Change.org to win friends and influence people here! I, for one, am rather leery of them now and afraid to even touch any of their petitions with a ten foot pole!