There are also RFCs which spell out accepted behavior and unacceptable behavior. RFCs, while not having the force of law, are generally referred to by legitimate ISPs as the final say in usage matters.

In addition, there are laws outside of "cyberspace" which do govern the kinds of things that you did. People tend to draw an erroneous distinction between a "real" world and "cyberspace." This is entirely fallacious, because "cyberspace" exists only within the real world in the computers and equipment worldwide, where existing laws and rules still hold. "Cyberspace" as such is a subset of the "outside" world, and as such, inherits all the characteristics of the "outside" world, including its laws.

In short, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, or face the wrath of the Romans. If you don't like the rules, lobby to change them. If you don't like your ISP's policies, change ISPs.

Third, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

What that has been held by the highest courts in the land to mean, since that document was first penned and through to this day, is that the government cannot censor you, but any private individual or corporation can, if your "speech" comes within their control. That means that if the government is not doing it, it is not censorship, and does not fall under the First Amendment. Period. End of discussion. Your ISP can terminate or restrict your account for any reason it deems necessary, or restrict your access to outside information or contact at will. Very recent court cases in the Supreme Court have upheld this yet again.

Besides, there is something called common sense, that should throw a red flag in front of anyone's nose, that something that purports to be as easy and free from risk as these chain letters do is suspicious. If schemes like MMF worked, don't you think you would hear verifiable stories about them, not just affirmations from the person trying to get you involved? Learn not to trust the grey, nebulous "they" that the world seems to turn to for its advice upon frequent occasions. I have yet to see (other than in a Far Side cartoon) a definition of who "they" are. Use accurate thinking and make your own judgements, based upon only things that can be verified to be facts, and only those facts that are pertinent to the question at hand..

Please don't use the "but so many people were doing it and saying it worked, so I thought it was true" excuse. A moment's accurate thought instead of acting on impulse would bring you to the conclusion that each and every one of those people was attempting to gather more people into the scheme for their own benefit, not others', and so therefore had reason to falsify anything they might say, just as you did when you made your outlandish and untrue claims. You made many claims in your chain letter that were in first person tense - that you had specifically done these things and that you had made such and such amount of money, etc. If you had not done so (which you didn't), those were outright lies. How do you reconcile that with being an honest person and not knowing that this was illegal or unethical? Do you often tell outright lies to further your own ends, without regard for others?

Also, a simple calculator and 5 minutes would convince anyone of the mathematical impossibility of these pyramid schemes. It is not my responsibility to go around changing your diaper for you. It is my responsibility as a good citizen of both real world and cyberspace to attempt to protect others from these illegal schemes by any legal method I have within my disposal.