stadlin@hou2h.UUCP (Art Stadlin) (05/02/85)
> > Chain letters are against the law in the United States. If you get such > a thing with a US postmark, contact the postmaster for the central office > indicated by the postmark. They actively prosecute people who send such > things. > Would someone please explain why chain letters are illegal. I don't see why they are any more of a nuisance than junk mail. There must be something I'm missing here. -- \\\ \\\\ Art Stadlin \\\\\\________!{akgua,ihnp4,houxm}!hou2h!stadlin
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/03/85)
The type of chain letter thst is illegal is one that asks for you to send something with the letter. Like, send $20.00 to the name at the top of the list and put yours at the bottom. They always say that when your name gets to the top, you will get zillions of dollars. The chain letter being discussed here is not a true chain letter. There is no list of names or anything to send. It is just being passed around. I have seen it at least 4 times in the last ten years. The reason that chain letters, real ones, are illegal is that only the top few people ever make anything out of it and those on the bottom lose out as the letter dies due to lack of support. This scheme was around for quite awhile before it was stopped. It is kinda like a Ponzi scheme. I'll tell you about them in the next episode. T. C. Wheeler
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/03/85)
> Would someone please explain why chain letters are illegal. > I don't see why they are any more of a nuisance than junk mail. The inconsistency is not that chain-letters are illegal, but that junk mail is legal. Saturation direct-mail advertising ought to be the only crime punishable by death. :-) Jeff Winslow
shp@crystal.UUCP (05/03/85)
> > > > Chain letters are against the law in the United States. If you get such > > a thing with a US postmark, contact the postmaster for the central office > > indicated by the postmark. They actively prosecute people who send such > > things. > > > Would someone please explain why chain letters are illegal. > I don't see why they are any more of a nuisance than junk mail. > There must be something I'm missing here. > -- > \\\ > \\\\ Art Stadlin > \\\\\\________!{akgua,ihnp4,houxm}!hou2h!stadlin I'm not sure anymore if ALL chain letters are illegal, or just the ones that ask for money. A lot used to; they'd say something like: "Mail $1 to the person at the top of the list, then remove the name from the list and add yourself to the bottom." Most of these had a fan-out of about 6, and a total list of about 6. 6^6 is a little under $50K. Not bad for three weeks. Anyway, I think they were made illegal because of the threats involved ("or bad luck will surely befall you."). Probably the same reason that cons are illegal; my personal opinion is that if you're dumb enough to buy swampland in New Mexico, or famous monuments in New York, you probably deserve what you get (screwed) (:-), but still, lots of innocent people fall for it. =shp P. S. The last chainletter I got was mailed to me via e-mail, locally. OOOhhh, such fun. Fan-out of 20, and several friends got them, too. Yeah, you got it, we each mailed the damn thing twenty times to the turkey who sent it to us. The system nearly choked on ~100 sendmails running at once, but it got over it. Oh, well.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (05/03/85)
It's my understanding that chain letters in general are NOT illegal.
What the law prohibits is chain letters that either involve money (and
therefore constituting "pyramid" or "Ponzi" schemes) or threats of
horrible fates that await folks who "break the chain." Both
prohibitions strike me as reasonable. (And someone please correct me if
my impression is wrong.)
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarydave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (05/04/85)
> Would someone please explain why chain letters are illegal. > I don't see why they are any more of a nuisance than junk mail. > There must be something I'm missing here. The problem is that you are trying to use apply rational thought to the law... they have no connection. :-) -- Dave Messer ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave