@ETpro Thanks for providing the link to the statute.
The question remains though, whether or not the statute is just? Personally, I think it is, as one person’s “good intentions” could turn out to be harmful. For instance, if the piece of candy X placed in the mailbox contained peanuts and a kid who was allergic to peanuts ate it, this would be bad for the kid. Of course, there is also the issue of letting bad people put bad things into a mailbox.
See, this question arises from this book that a friend told me to read a while back. I would not mention the book’s name, but the book’s theme seems to be “Any sort of nonconformity is ok, even if it infringes on others’ rights.”
Another example in the book is X doing something for someone who expressly told the person X not to do it. Like (this is not in the book but..) if I told X that I don’t want X to come up to me when I get a good grade on an exam and throw a huge impromptu “congratulations” party because I don’t want the gunners gunning for me, my express wish should be honored, regardless of X’s intent.
What seems to bother me though, was that the book was apparently quite popular among certain mainstream circles. The plot was rather interesting, but I think that the theme could be disastrous if used by the wrong people (e.g. what if X planted a bomb in the mailbox instead) or if used in a way that infringes on others’ rights.