It seems just a touch odd that last week Singapore for the first time invoked its Spam Control Act with nary a mention of caning among the consequences for violators.
Not that I believe in caning spammers, mind you, at least not in the literal sense (if we’re talking figuratively, well, no punishment is too harsh).
But caning is considered a perfectly acceptable form of corporal punishment in Singapore — you can read about it on Wikipedia’s “Caning in Singapore” page. (Isn’t it amazing that Wikipedia has a “Caning in Singapore” page?) And you may remember the 1994 case of Michael Fay, an American teenager living in Singapore who was arrested for vandalism, tried, convicted … and caned. At the time it was a genuine international incident — cries of outrage were heard from all corners of the globe — but none of that spared Fay the rod.
So it seems just a touch odd that this week Singapore for the first time invoked its Spam Control Act with nary a mention of caning among the consequences for violators. According to a statement from the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, spammers will face fines of as much as 1 million Singapore dollars, or $657,000 American.
“The Act will offer a framework to better manage unsolicited commercial electronic messages sent in bulk, otherwise known as spam,” the ministry boasted.
A $675,000 fine is nothing to sneeze at, of course. But where’s the jail time? And, where in the name of Michael Fay is the caning?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t even believe in spanking children and haven’t hit anyone for any reason since whacking a guy’s fist with my upper lip during a brawl at a football game 30 years ago. I’m a nonviolent sort.
But we’re talking spammers in Singapore here and the temptation is overwhelming. From that Wikipedia article on caning: “The subject to be caned is strapped in a bending-over position to a metal or wooden frame. The punishment is delivered to the bare buttocks, the number of strokes being specified in the court’s sentence.”
Now doesn’t that seem like punishment fit for a spammer? I mean if you believe in that sort of thing? And you live in a country where it’s considered perfectly civilized?
It’s an extra-large world after all
Unwelcome jockstrap ads on a Disney-related Web site might seem amusing — OK, it is amusing — unless you’re Al Lutz and run MiceAge.com, an independent online outlet for news, gossip, opinion and visitor tips regarding all things Disney.
Lutz doesn’t want to sell jockstraps, but he’s had no luck in getting Amazon to stop putting the ads and their otherwise buck-naked models in front of his readers.
Before we hear from the aggrieved party, you should know that this is no Mickey Mouse vanity operation we’re talking about — Lutz claims 2 million to 5 million monthly visitors, the latter when MiceAge broke the story of Lindsay Lohan and friends ripping up a Disneyland party. And while the younger crowd might not blanch at a jockstrap ad, they are not the primary audience for MiceAge.
“We skew older in our readership,” Lutz tells me. “Baby Boomers love their Disneyland.”
Baby Boomers wear jockstraps, too, don’ t they? Yes, but …
“Our typical readers have come to trust the site when we suggest something to them (a ride, tour or book) — in the same way one might have a good friend who always knows what flowers work best for what occasion,” Lutz explains. “Imagine going to that friend for some advice on a floral arrangement and then having him extol the virtues of a jockstrap instead. To say you’d be creeped out would be an understatement.”
If you’re interested in how Lutz got into this pickle and his back-and-forth with Amazon’s service department, you can read the actual e-mails on my blog.
Let’s just say the exchange didn’t leave Lutz in the happiest place on earth.
Not happy either. The address is buzz@nww.com
